People in the United States seem to constantly bemoan that “half the country always loves the president, half the country always hates the president.” (Well, only ⅓ loves Trump. But, still.) But, if people don’t like this system, then maybe they should change it!
Trump won with out receiving a majority or even a plurality of the popular vote. I’m not here to debate whether he actually won–under the U.S. system, he did win! I’m merely asking if this is a good system to have.
Electing a leader that the majority of voters did not vote for does not inspire confidence in the leader or in the system. Electing a leader that juuuuust managed to scrape past 50% of the popular vote also does not inspire confidence.
I might be living on fantasy island to suggest such an absurd idea, but maybe we should change this? Here’s one idea:
In short, you are given a slate of different candidates to rank. If your first choice candidate does not get enough votes, then your support is shifted to your second choice candidate. You can then then set elections to not be over until a single candidate has at least a certain threshold of votes. (Like, “Until one candidate has 60% support, this election will not be over.”)
I know I’m a dirty hippie for suggesting that perhaps the U.S. Constitution needs some minor adjustments. I’ll show myself out.