Here’s a question to consider: What would you say to an amendment that said something like: When the President-Elect fails to win the popular vote by majority or wins the popular vote by a plurality, the President-Elect shall be deemed “Acting President”. The "Acting President’ shall be under a probationary period for 2 years at which time the people shall hold another General Election to decide if the “Acting President” shall continue for the balance of a full term. (Now, the only question is what if the “Acting President” once again fails to win by popular majority? …They hold a chili bake-off?)
All political ads-All the time! Four years on the campaign trail! LameDuckery to excess!
Sure, why not? :rolleyes:
I’m pretty sure “Acting President” already has a meaning - someone who is temporarily President until the Congress can approve a new President. See Section 3 of the 20th Amendment.
In any case, since the “term” for your “acting President” is two years, then the sitting President would serve another two years.
[ol]
[li]This doesn’t solve any problem except by making the office of president more volatile; your half-term president is going either going to have to get legislation passed more quickly (with a favorable majority in the legislature) or will become more reliant upon executive authority (with an unfavorable majority) in order to accomplish anything at all, and gives basically no chance for voters to actually assess the efficacy of whatever policies he or she may be able to enact in that time.[/li][li]This is manifestly unlikely to get a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives, much less ratification by thirty-eight or more states. [/li][li]If you could get the required consensus, you’d be better off just fixing the problem by reforming the Electoral College to a formula that more equitably represents demographics and eliminates the kind of all-for-one statewide allocation that marginalized many states and magnifies the value of a few. [/li][li]Of course, if you’re going to dream, you might as well dream big and reform the entire election process to marginalize or eliminate giant PACs and secret funding, allow for a greater influence by popular alternative parties, and generally eliminate professional lobbying entirely. Good luck with that.[/li][/ol]
As painful as this is, the current clusterfuck isn’t really a result of a ‘broken’ system (anything we’d replace the Electoral College with would probably have its own set of problems in giving equitable representation to both large and small states and interests); it is the result of both parties running candidates with consistently negative net approval ratings. We’re just lucky that Gary ‘Future Celebrity Jeopardy Contestant’ Johnson didn’t a substantial number of votes and end up with a divisive plurality.
Stranger
I think the chili bake-off is the best part of the plan.
What if the “Acting President” fails to win the popular vote by majority or wins the popular vote by a plurality in “Election-The Sequel!”?
Awful idea. The election is to determine the POTUS. If we can’t do that properly then fix it, don’t put this awful kludge in place leaving the country in an uncertain state for 4 years.
For the amount of effort it would take to get this sort of constitutional amendment, you might as well just amend away the Electoral College altogether.
It’s bad enough having a Presidential election every four years. 
Wins the popular vote by a plurality, huh?
John Quincy Adams
James Buchanan
George W. Bush (first term)
Bill Clinton (both terms)
Grover Cleveland (both terms)
James Garfield
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford B. Hayes
John F. Kennedy
Abraham Lincoln (first term)
Richard Nixon (first term)
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Harry Truman
Donald Trump
Woodrow Wilson (both terms)
Since 1824, 19 out of 58 presidential elections have ended up with the winner receiving less than 50% of the popular vote. Do we really want to go through this process one-third of the time?
I wonder if this would make 3rd parties more or less popular.
“Don’t like these two? Vote for a third party and have a do-over in 2 years!”
I think a better approach if we hate the electoral college is:
- Presidential candidates must win a majority of the votes.
- A runoff shall be held in early December featuring only the top two candidates if neither candidate wins a majority. If there are concerns about transition timing, return the inauguration to March as it was pre-FDR.
- If runoffs are deemed too unwieldy or there are concerns about turnout or vastly different electorates at each election, then neither candidate must win a majority, but the winning candidate must win by at least a full percentage point. All “ties”, which is any election where the candidates are within a percentage point in the vote, go to the challenging party.
No, we should not have a provisional President. We should have a system for electing a President and that person becomes the full President. And if the President dies or leaves office, then the Vice President or whoever’s next in line becomes the full President.