What Are The Pros And Cons Of The National Bonus Plan

The electoral reform I am suggesting was first proposed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in 1978 and it was called the “National Bonus Plan”. The National Bonus Plan is not a dramatic change to the way elections in the U.S. currently take place, but I think the modifications that would be necessary with campaigns and political strategy to be successful in this new era could be productive ones. It retains the current electoral college and many of the same characteristics that are used today, but it awards extra electoral college votes for winning the popular vote. While there are pros and cons to this idea, I believe the positives would outweigh the negatives if we consider a few changes to Schlesinger’s original plan.

The original plan proposed

In our history there have been 5 times where this has occurred - most recently in 2016 when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton without winning the popular vote. In Schlesinger’s opinion, most Presidents in this scenario are not set up well for success and usually enjoy ineffectual administrations (Schlesinger 2000). In a big state like California or Texas, the weight of each vote is much lesser than that of a person in Idaho or Wyoming. However, one of the biggest challenges Schlesinger found is figuring out just how many extra votes winning the popular vote should count for. Schlesinger decided on 102 - two votes for every state and two votes for Washington, DC. Essentially, the biggest “state” to win changes from California, at 55, to the country itself, with 102 electoral votes. His goal was to almost entirely ensure that a candidate who won the popular vote would win the overall vote. By settling on a number like 102 Schlesinger is trying to ensure the popular vote winner is the overall winner. However, in an extremely unlikely scenario a candidate could still win the popular vote, along with the 102 bonus, and still lose in Electoral College votes. Normally a candidate needs to get to 270 votes to win the election. With the National Bonus Plan, a candidate would need to reach 321 electoral votes to gain

They are used in many different countries, would guarantee the President has full support of the people and it would eliminate the Electoral College, a system many view as old and outdated. Also, many countries who use direct elections with popular vote seem relatively happy with their design. Schlesinger has an important take on why direct elections would not function well in the U.S. “Direct-election proposals recognize that ideological and/or personalist parties would drain votes away from the major parties. Consequently, most direct-election proposals provide that, if no candidate receives 40% of the vote, the two top candidates would fight it out in a run-off” (Schlesinger 2000). Each of these claims bring up interesting points as to why direct elections would not work. It would weaken the 2-party system and it would allow for potentially more than one candidate to compete in the final election. He thinks that hundreds of new parties would form in reaction to this - parties for things such as senior citizens, anit-immigration and pro-life - to splinter off support from the main parties. These parties would drain support away from parties and limit their power. It would be a troubling trend and would lead to less democracy. Also, the idea of a second Presidential election, which could be necessary if no candidate wins over over 40% of the vote, would be grim to contemplate. To