Reforming the U.S. Electoral College: A Little Known, but Worthwhile, Proposal

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization. 

By Stephen R. Rolandi
March 17, 2025

“The Electoral College: It’s a Process, Not a Place”—Hon. David Sean Ferriero, Tenth Archivist of the United States (2009-2022)

Some weeks ago, I received in the mail a letter from a good government watchdog organization soliciting my support and a financial contribution advocating a major change to the United States Electoral College.

I was a little surprised to receive it, coming as it did nearly four months after last fall’s Presidential election; and as we all well know, the Electoral College was not a controversial issue nor a dispute this time around. The victorious candidate won by a clear cut margin in both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote, unlike what happened in 2000 and 2016, and what nearly occurred in 2004 and 2020.

The Electoral College (refer to Article II and the 12^th Amendment in the United States Constitution) is a favorite research interest of mine, and I have given many presentations the last few years about it. Given the controversial nature of the outcome in the 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections, it is not surprising that many Americans do not understand the mechanics of the Electoral College, compared to other American elections for a myriad of elective positions at the Federal, state and local levels.

Over the years, there have been numerous proposals advanced to reform and/or abolish the Electoral College, most notably the proposal to abolish the College in favor of a direct popular vote election for the President and Vice President, as well as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Proposal, advanced by the League of Women Voters (LMV). None have been successful to date.

However, there was another proposal utilizing proportional representation (PR) that was advanced in 1950 entitled the “Fractional Proportional (Lodge-Gossett Amendment) Method of Awarding Electoral Votes”—this is my topic for this month’s column.

What Is Proportional Representation (PR)?

PR refers to any electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body, usually legislatures. The concept applies mainly to political divisions (i.e. political parties) among voters. The purpose of PR systems is that all votes cast contribute to the result so that each representative in a legislative body is mandated by a roughly equal number of voters; and therefore all votes have equal weight.

Many parliamentary democracies utilize such a system to elect representatives to their national legislature. Some version of PR was used for many years to elect local community board members for the City of New York’s Board of Education (since re-organized as the Department of Education with no elected local school boards) as well as to elect members of the New York City Council  from 1936-1947 and Cincinnati’s municipal council from 1924-1955. It should be noted that PR is considered a forerunner to the Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) processes found in many local and state elections in the United States currently.

The Lodge-Gossett Amendment of 1950

The proposed Fractional Proportional Method of Awarding Electoral Votes was introduced in the U.S. Senate as S.J. Res. 2 (81^st Congress, First Session, 1949).  The principal sponsor in the Senate was Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (1902-1985) of Massachusetts, who some readers may remember as the 1960 Republican nominee for Vice President, and also as U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam, West Germany, the United Nations and the Holy See (Vatican City). The bill was co-sponsored in the House of Representatives by Representative Ed Lee Gossett (1902-1990) of Texas, who served in the House from 1939-1951 and was Chairman of the House Committee on Elections. After leaving Congress, Gossett served as a judge and general counsel for the Texas Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.

The legislation had three main components:

• It would have abolished presidential electors but retain the electoral votes of each state (and presumably the District of Columbia which was later added by the 1961 23^rd Amendment to the Constitution);
• Eliminate the current “winner-take-all” system (also known as the unit rule) where the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote in a given state receives that state’s entire electoral vote allocation (with the current exception of Maine and Nebraska);
• Eliminate the involvement of the House of Representatives in contingent elections when no candidate has secured the majority of the Electoral College vote.

The Senate approved the proposed legislation by a 64-27 vote while the measure was defeated in the House of Representatives. Another version of this bill was introduced in the Senate by then U.S. Senator Howard Cannon (D-Nevada) but it was not successful.

Analysis of the Lodge-Gossett Amendment

At first glance, the Lodge-Gossett Amendment would make the two parties more competitive in each state, as the abolition of the winner-take-all method would give a losing party some allocation of each state’s votes in the Electoral College. This proposal would require an amendment to the Federal Constitution, where Congress would have to pass he measure by a two-thirds vote and then 75 percent of the states would need to ratify it. It probably reduces the impact third party candidacies may have on individual states, such as the impact Ralph Nader’s Green Party had in the state of Florida in the 2000 election.

Some analysts believe that such a measure would not guarantee the popular vote winner actually getting elected. For example, in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would still have won the Electoral Vote while losing the popular vote; in 2020, had this system been in place, President Biden would have defeated Donald Trump, but by a much smaller margin. This may be attributed to the fact that the proportional allocation method may skew marginal or swing state voters.

Conclusion 

While the Lodge-Gossett Amendment did not become law, it is worth considering for future national presidential elections, as it does improve upon the current winner-take-all system. Whether it would become viable will depend if and when the major parties see this proposal to their advantage. Time will tell.

For Further Reading and Research:

• “The Lodge-Gossett Resolution: A Critical Analysis,” Cambridge University Press, September 2, 2013 (reprinted on line from article appearing in American Political Science Review, March 1950)
• “Proportional, Not Popular: Reforming the Electoral College,” Northeastern University Political Review, April 2020
• Steven L. Taylor, “What if the Electoral Vote was Proportional?,” Outside the Beltway, May 2020
• George H. Hallett, Jr. PR: Proportional Representation: The Key to Democracy (originally published in 1937; re-published in 1977; now available through Amazon)

---

Author: Stephen R. Rolandi retired in 2015 after serving with the State and City of New York. He holds BA and MPA degrees from New York University, and studied law at Brooklyn Law School. He teaches public finance and management as an Adjunct Professor of Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) and Pace University. Professor Rolandi serves as a Trustee of NECoPA;  President-emeritus/Senior Advisor for ASPA’s New York Metropolitan Chapter and past Senior National Council Representative. He has  served  on many  association boards, and is a frequent guest commentator on  public affairs and political issues affecting the nation and New York State. You can reach him at: [email protected] or [email protected] or  914.441.3399 or 212.237.8000 (messages). 

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...