What about having the president elected by a supermajority of Congress? Tho as far as I understand such systems are only in place in countries with separate prime ministers. What are your thoughts generally on trying a parliamentary system in the US (tho I would say that would be much better with proportional party lists instead of single-member districts)?
You have some good points here, but if the President keeps as much power as he does now, I'm still concerned that gubernatorial elections would become (at least to some degree) proxies for Presidential elections. However, if you couple this with reducing Presidential power, I think this could alleviate my concerns.
Removing the popular mandate would (as you say) go a ways, and your previous amendment neutering the veto would continue that, but I think it would also be important to reform judicial nominations (if not judicial power as a whole) and rein in the President's enforcement discretion.
Also, for a wording concern that plays into my "proxy" fears: your amendment currently reposes this power in whoever (if anyone) holds the title "governor." But what if some state retitles its executive as something else (maybe "chairman") and creates another office titled "governor" with no duties except this? Athens did a similar thing when they became a republic, and kept a magistrate around with the title "king" for religious rituals. I think it would be better to just say "executive authority" and depend on Congress or the Electoral Convention to identify the correct one.
A strong suggestion, and I'm especially impressed with how you consider downstream problems such as governors becoming proxies. I'd support this. My one amendment would be that the vote should require slightly more than a simple majority of population represented. Maybe not 2/3, but say 60%. Maybe in a country not already beset with our level of polarization, a simple majority would do, but as it stands, the forced moderation needs to be quite high.
The current system gives small states a weighted advantage relative to the popular vote. Your proposed system overall gives small states even more power relative to larger ones, since the win conditions include a system in which Wyoming is equal to California, rather than merely weighted. But this is fine if the population-based vote requires a supermajority.
Here's a problem that comes to mind with this model: personal presence in the room and individual interests. Even if the large-state governors have weighted votes, a majority of Americans have fewer voices in the room, which affects how debate plays out. Moreover, we need to anticipate that back-scratching and personal favors will play a role in these deliberations. Because there are fewer individuals representing more of the people, the interests of the bulk of the population are more susceptible to individual corruption.
The most obvious solution to this issue brings us right back to states sending electors. But we know how the electoral college turned out the first time. Have you had thoughts about the above issue?
I would like to quibble with the idea that the national conventions generally gave us good Presidents. Sure, yes, we got TR, Truman, Lincoln, and Eisenhower, but we also got Pierce, Buchanan, Wilson, and Harding.
There are two problems with the “gubernatorial electoral college (GEC)” as presented.
The first is that two states (as you noted), Vermont and New Hampshire have 2 year gubernatorial terms; and that 3 other states (Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi) elect their governors the year prior to the Presidential election. All these state governors would be shut out of the GEC. (Perhaps you would grandfather those states in as exceptions).
But the much more fundamental problem is this: Once voters have a direct election power they will not give it up, and punish elected officials who try to do so. So the GEC will never fly (even though it’s an interesting proposal).
And in any case the real problem is how the candidates for President and Vice-President are nominated. Currently, there are no Constitutional mechanisms governing that process at all. Maybe there should be a provision for the governors to caucus and make those nominations, with no other candidates being eligible for electoral votes? Or maybe some national system of ballot access should be imposed, allowing multiple candidates equal access to the general election ballot (which would then have to be some form of ranked choice voting, along with banning the parties limiting who could run). In any case, some proposal along those lines is at least slightly less unlikely. But voters electing the President even mediated by an electoral vote system is here to stay.
It seems to me that the problem with your analysis is that to justify any replacement for the current system, you need to demonstrate a basis to believe it will lead to better results.
Just about every form of government tends to result in the “selection” of poor leaders. So the question is whether your method would produce or would it have produced more capable leadership. Would we get more Washingtons, Lincoln’s, Roosevelts, or peacetime Eisenhowers.
Governors may be a good source for experienced administrators, but sometimes the greatest administrators had little experience as administrators but instead had the exact leadership skills needed for the time, such as Oppenheimer.
I believe we’ve done better than any other nation selecting our heads of state. That’s pretty darn good proof.
I've spend far too much time ruminating on this topic since it was posted. But I think I have a solution.
Rather than add complexity to the process of electing a President, radically changing to a "Governors Electoral College" or trying to take over the party nomination process, I have a simple solution:
Add a qualification so that a President (and of necessity, Vice-President) must be a current or former state governor.
That's it. Change nothing else. Not the Electoral College. Not the nomination process.
I agree with everything James says about governors. And if they are eminently qualified to elect a President, they are also eminently qualified to serve as President.
Of course, we have had some good non-governor Presidents (including our 2 best, Washington and Lincoln). And former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter was no prize. But in general, governors make better Presidents, having proven both that they can function as executives and can function as politicians. This requirement would exclude wannabe celebrities (like a certain NYC real estate mogul) from running vanity campaigns and hoping lightning strikes. It would also dissuade all the senators who think they can be President, from running Presidential campaigns every four years instead of being Senators.
And it would exclude both that mogul who got lucky, and that do-nothing Senator turned Vice-President, from running.
You would, of course, have more ambitious people seeking to be governor rather than run for Congress. But that's a Good Thing. State governors have to satisfy a broad range of interests in their state. They have to build coalitions. They have to negotiate to get what they want. htey have to act, not grandstand on social media. All good things. And neither current contender has done any of those things.
It is true that governors lack experience in at least one, possibly two areas: foreign relations and possibly the military (depending on whether they had served or not). But I don't see those as insuperable obstacles. Many governors have experience courting international companies to do business or setup factories in their state.
What about having the president elected by a supermajority of Congress? Tho as far as I understand such systems are only in place in countries with separate prime ministers. What are your thoughts generally on trying a parliamentary system in the US (tho I would say that would be much better with proportional party lists instead of single-member districts)?
You have some good points here, but if the President keeps as much power as he does now, I'm still concerned that gubernatorial elections would become (at least to some degree) proxies for Presidential elections. However, if you couple this with reducing Presidential power, I think this could alleviate my concerns.
Removing the popular mandate would (as you say) go a ways, and your previous amendment neutering the veto would continue that, but I think it would also be important to reform judicial nominations (if not judicial power as a whole) and rein in the President's enforcement discretion.
Also, for a wording concern that plays into my "proxy" fears: your amendment currently reposes this power in whoever (if anyone) holds the title "governor." But what if some state retitles its executive as something else (maybe "chairman") and creates another office titled "governor" with no duties except this? Athens did a similar thing when they became a republic, and kept a magistrate around with the title "king" for religious rituals. I think it would be better to just say "executive authority" and depend on Congress or the Electoral Convention to identify the correct one.
A strong suggestion, and I'm especially impressed with how you consider downstream problems such as governors becoming proxies. I'd support this. My one amendment would be that the vote should require slightly more than a simple majority of population represented. Maybe not 2/3, but say 60%. Maybe in a country not already beset with our level of polarization, a simple majority would do, but as it stands, the forced moderation needs to be quite high.
The current system gives small states a weighted advantage relative to the popular vote. Your proposed system overall gives small states even more power relative to larger ones, since the win conditions include a system in which Wyoming is equal to California, rather than merely weighted. But this is fine if the population-based vote requires a supermajority.
Here's a problem that comes to mind with this model: personal presence in the room and individual interests. Even if the large-state governors have weighted votes, a majority of Americans have fewer voices in the room, which affects how debate plays out. Moreover, we need to anticipate that back-scratching and personal favors will play a role in these deliberations. Because there are fewer individuals representing more of the people, the interests of the bulk of the population are more susceptible to individual corruption.
The most obvious solution to this issue brings us right back to states sending electors. But we know how the electoral college turned out the first time. Have you had thoughts about the above issue?
I would like to quibble with the idea that the national conventions generally gave us good Presidents. Sure, yes, we got TR, Truman, Lincoln, and Eisenhower, but we also got Pierce, Buchanan, Wilson, and Harding.
Just started reading and already hit footnote #2 just absolute gold! Especially the “good people” hyperlink… GOLD I say!
There are two problems with the “gubernatorial electoral college (GEC)” as presented.
The first is that two states (as you noted), Vermont and New Hampshire have 2 year gubernatorial terms; and that 3 other states (Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi) elect their governors the year prior to the Presidential election. All these state governors would be shut out of the GEC. (Perhaps you would grandfather those states in as exceptions).
But the much more fundamental problem is this: Once voters have a direct election power they will not give it up, and punish elected officials who try to do so. So the GEC will never fly (even though it’s an interesting proposal).
And in any case the real problem is how the candidates for President and Vice-President are nominated. Currently, there are no Constitutional mechanisms governing that process at all. Maybe there should be a provision for the governors to caucus and make those nominations, with no other candidates being eligible for electoral votes? Or maybe some national system of ballot access should be imposed, allowing multiple candidates equal access to the general election ballot (which would then have to be some form of ranked choice voting, along with banning the parties limiting who could run). In any case, some proposal along those lines is at least slightly less unlikely. But voters electing the President even mediated by an electoral vote system is here to stay.
It seems to me that the problem with your analysis is that to justify any replacement for the current system, you need to demonstrate a basis to believe it will lead to better results.
Just about every form of government tends to result in the “selection” of poor leaders. So the question is whether your method would produce or would it have produced more capable leadership. Would we get more Washingtons, Lincoln’s, Roosevelts, or peacetime Eisenhowers.
Governors may be a good source for experienced administrators, but sometimes the greatest administrators had little experience as administrators but instead had the exact leadership skills needed for the time, such as Oppenheimer.
I believe we’ve done better than any other nation selecting our heads of state. That’s pretty darn good proof.
Runoff between top two candidates.
I've spend far too much time ruminating on this topic since it was posted. But I think I have a solution.
Rather than add complexity to the process of electing a President, radically changing to a "Governors Electoral College" or trying to take over the party nomination process, I have a simple solution:
Add a qualification so that a President (and of necessity, Vice-President) must be a current or former state governor.
That's it. Change nothing else. Not the Electoral College. Not the nomination process.
I agree with everything James says about governors. And if they are eminently qualified to elect a President, they are also eminently qualified to serve as President.
Of course, we have had some good non-governor Presidents (including our 2 best, Washington and Lincoln). And former Georgia governor Jimmy Carter was no prize. But in general, governors make better Presidents, having proven both that they can function as executives and can function as politicians. This requirement would exclude wannabe celebrities (like a certain NYC real estate mogul) from running vanity campaigns and hoping lightning strikes. It would also dissuade all the senators who think they can be President, from running Presidential campaigns every four years instead of being Senators.
And it would exclude both that mogul who got lucky, and that do-nothing Senator turned Vice-President, from running.
You would, of course, have more ambitious people seeking to be governor rather than run for Congress. But that's a Good Thing. State governors have to satisfy a broad range of interests in their state. They have to build coalitions. They have to negotiate to get what they want. htey have to act, not grandstand on social media. All good things. And neither current contender has done any of those things.
It is true that governors lack experience in at least one, possibly two areas: foreign relations and possibly the military (depending on whether they had served or not). But I don't see those as insuperable obstacles. Many governors have experience courting international companies to do business or setup factories in their state.
What do you think, James?