Jesse Wegman, a member of The New York Times editorial board and author advocating for abolishing the Electoral College, faces off against Robert Hardaway, a law professor who argues in favor of its preservation. The discussion dives into the complexities of the Electoral College and its alternatives like ranked choice voting. They debate the implications of a national popular vote, potential legal challenges in a contested election, and the constitutional authority of governors in certifying results. Both present compelling arguments about the future of electoral integrity and democracy.
Abolishing the Electoral College is advocated to uphold political equality and ensure that every vote carries equal weight in a democratic society.
Supporters of the Electoral College claim it prevents voter fragmentation and maintains the interests of smaller states in a national election process.
Ranked choice voting is proposed as a solution to better reflect voter preferences and avoid plurality winners not representing the majority.
Deep dives
Arguments for Abolishing the Electoral College
The case for abolishing the Electoral College emphasizes the principles of political equality and majority rule as fundamental to a modern democracy. Proponents argue that the current system allows candidates to win the presidency while receiving fewer votes than their opponents, thus violating the essence of majority rule. Furthermore, it is contended that the Electoral College leads to unequal voting power, where the significance of a vote varies depending on the state in which it is cast. These inequalities highlight the need for a national popular vote that would ensure every vote carries the same weight, reflecting a true democratic standard.
Defense of the Electoral College
Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it prevents the potential chaos of a national popular vote system, which could lead to voter fragmentation and instability. They cite examples from countries with multiple parties where no single candidate achieves a clear majority, resulting in runoffs that can disenfranchise large portions of the electorate. The Electoral College is also seen as a necessary compromise that balances the interests of smaller states and ensures that candidates can't solely focus on populous urban areas. This system is viewed as securing broad national support, resulting in presidents who consider the interests of diverse regions.
Ranked Choice Voting as a Solution
The implementation of ranked choice voting is proposed as a way to better reflect voter preferences and ensure that elected candidates represent the majority opinion. Advocates argue that this method could mitigate concerns about plurality winners becoming president with less than a majority of the vote. Ranked choice voting has been successfully used in various locales, showing that voters are willing to rank candidates based on their preferences rather than merely choosing one. This approach could provide a more democratic outcome while maintaining the integrity of the electoral process.
Legal Challenges and Electoral Count Act Reforms
Recent reforms to the Electoral Count Act aim to limit potential partisan intervention in the certification of election results. These changes stipulate a more definitive role for Congress and clarify that the Vice President's duties are primarily ceremonial. The likelihood of more significant legal challenges looms as political figures and parties explore ways to manipulate election outcomes, and therefore, the reforms serve as a preventive measure against past events, such as those seen on January 6, 2021. However, the extent to which these reforms will be effective in avoiding electoral chaos remains uncertain.
Contested Elections and the Role of State Authority
The potential for state governors to influence the certification process of electoral votes raises questions about constitutional authority and the integrity of election results. Some argue that once a state certifies its election results, they should be considered conclusive, preventing federal courts or Congress from challenging those outcomes. This perspective emphasizes a strict interpretation of state rights and the adage that once the electoral slate is confirmed, the decision is final. However, critics assert that such a position could lead to situations where unlawful certifications undermine the democratic process and the constitutional framework.
On the eve of the 2024 presidential election, Jesse Wegman, member of TheNew York Times editorial board and author of Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, and Robert Hardaway, professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and author of Saving the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Would Undermine Democracy, join Jeffrey Rosen to debate the Electoral College and preview potential legal challenges that might arise in the aftermath of the election. This program was originally streamed live as part of the NCC’s America’s Town Hall series on October 29, 2024.