WorstPlans.com updates every Monday!

Your weekly source for terrible plans and ideas!

Tag: election

Is it true that TWO electoral colleges are better than one? Improving the American political system by adding a second “mega-region”-based electoral college.


Every four years, interest is re-kindled in the odd “Electoral College”-based method of tallying up American presidential votes.

Since the electoral votes are actually assigned on a per-state[*] basis (Figure 1), this has the side effect of making the presidential elections hinge on a few “battleground” districts—tiny subsets of swing states whose voting outcome isn’t already predictable.

Thus, only voters in these regions actually need to be granted presidential boons in order to persuade them—voters in the vast majority of states can be safely ignored.

[*] Some states split their electoral votes between candidates, but this is not common.

Fig. 1: Since electoral votes are (generally) assigned on a per-state basis, you don’t actually need to know the percentage of voters in each state who voted a certain way. A map like this one would be sufficient!

The issue:

People frequently discuss the idea of changing the electoral college system to a one-vote-per-person system.

However, very little consideration has gone into the other direction—having a SECOND electoral college, essentially an “electoral college for the electoral college.”

If one electoral college is good, maybe two would be better?


Here, we propose that the United States be grouped—for the purposes of elections only—into 10 five-state “electoral mega-regions.” Washington D.C. will retain its 3 electoral votes, and will be counted as a secret “Megaregion Zero” (not shown on map).

(To increase the level of mystery, its votes will only be used in cases of ties, and will not be included in tallies otherwise.)

Fig. 2A: Ten megaregions, each consisting of five states, have been gerrymandered together into this proposed grouping. See figure 2B for an examination of their electoral votes

Then, each of these megaregions would cast its aggregated “mega-electoral-votes” just as the normal electoral votes are determined.

Fig. 2B: One interesting failure mode of this method of grouping—and something that may make it a difficult sell—is that some groupings actually just “delete” the votes of certain states. For example, in Megaregion 6, Texas has a majority of votes for the entire region, as does California in Megaregion 7. Thus, this system serves to remove the following eight states from the electoral pool entirely: Alaska, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

In order to fix the disenfranchisement problem described in Fig 2B, we could assign the votes of each megaregion based on a a simple majority of its states: instead of allowing Texas to entirely determine the outcome of Megaregion 6 (as it would if we weighted states by population or electoral votes), we would count each state as a single vote: so it would be a “best 3 out of 5” for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Hawaii, and Alaska.

With this “one state / one vote” method, every state would be important in assigning the votes of the megaregion.


Thanks to this reformed system, politics will be saved forever. Also, this may showcase the electoral college system, leading other countries to adopt it.

PROS: Improves the electoral college system by adding a second layer, thus multiplying its benefits.

CONS: It’s somehow theoretically possible that this might lead to gerrymandering???

See below for an additional example of this system in action.

Fig. 3A: If the states voted as above, for the RED, BLUE, YELLOW, and PURPLE parties, the updated megaregion-voting-assignment process would allocate the votes as shown in Figure 3B (not described: a tiebreaking process for dealing with situations in which the split is 2:2:1 or 1:1:1:1:1—presumably ties would be broken by a coin flip or something).
Fig. 3B: Now that each state has cast its (single) megaregion vote (as shown in figure 3A), we see how the state’s votes are distributed on a per-megaregion basis.

Election facts: three weird secrets for crafting the ultimate direct-democracy ballot proposal


Many jurisdictions allow a limited degree of direct democracy, where citizens can submit any measure to be voted on (for example: “the city will buy everyone a free horse to eat at Thanksgiving”). If a measure gets a sufficient number of signatures, it must be placed on the ballot.


It’s generally a lot of work to propose a valid ballot measure. But using the helpful tips below, you too can craft a successful ballot measure!

Make sure to:

  • Appeal to voters’ wallets. If your measure requires a new tax to support it, it is probably a non-starter.
    • Example 1: Prohibit increases in rent (note that this measure will be unpopular with landlords)
    • Example 2: Prohibit increases in property tax
    • Instead of funding your measure with taxes, you can propose a bond issuance (essentially just a loan) instead. Since this will not directly increase any taxes in an obvious way, voters are less likely to be opposed to it [1].
  • Appeal to people’s inherent dislike of change. Examples:
    • Prohibit new construction
    • Prohibit businesses in a residential area, and vice-versa
    • Restrict new businesses from coming into an area and competing with existing businesses
    • Prevent any external / façade modification of buildings
  • Choose an appealing name.
    • Example 1: a measure that de-funds all schools and sends children to work in the salt mines: “Hands-on Job Experience Primary School Education”
    • Example 2: a measure that turns all public parks into fenced-in garbage dumps: “Put Our Land to Work: Cheaper Trash Dropoffs and Parks that Pay for Themselves.”

Despite the examples directly above, it will be easier to pass a proposition that maintains the status quo. Your ideal proposition should both maintain the status quo and have an catchy name.

Here are two contrasting measures that make use of the above techniques:

MeasureR vs. MeasureH

Fig 1. Two conflicting sample measures that are frequently found on real-world ballots. While these specific ones may be too cartoonish to pass as currently written, they would have a chance with some creative re-wording! Use these as a template for your own ballot measure.

PROS: These ballot propositions will allow all voters to weigh in on important matters.

CONS: If citizens get too much democracy, this may result in “democracy overload,” which will instantly cause the government to revert to medieval feudalism [2].

[1]: Citation: just made up now, but might be true since it allows the proposition to avoid containing the word “tax.”

[2]: Citation: personal communication.