American Electoral System

by Zach Fotiadis

The American electoral system roundtable was an incredibly nuanced conversation that went in a number of directions. From the electoral college to the judiciary to voter fraud, the broad and somewhat ambiguous nature of the topic generated both scintillating discourse and confusion. All in all a productive dialogue, some defined limits could have kept it more centered and on track. 

The roundtable opened with a discussion of the electoral college, specifically whether its present structure best serves American democracy. Debate ensued over whether a proportional system of unpledged elector allocation (as in Nebraska and Maine) was preferable to the current winner-take-all method. A consensus was not reached over which system would least dilute the popular vote. However, there was universal agreement that substantive electoral reform should be prefaced by an end to gerrymandering congressional districts. 

The conversation then drifted somewhat into the realm of the American federal judiciary, in particular the role of the electoral college in determining Supreme Court appointees. The contention was raised that the highly consequential nature of the High Court in the wake of the Dobbs decision undermined the case for electing the president via electoral vote. Some confusion clouded this discussion, as the proposal for democratizing the judiciary itself (as many states have already done) was broached as a potential alternative. Additionally, the argument was made that an undemocratic judiciary is paramount for maximizing constitutional republicanism. However interesting and relevant, this back-and-forth on the American judicial system was a bit of a departure from the topic at hand. 

The exchange ultimately u-turned back toward the electoral college, exploring the interesting angle of whether it would minimize the prospect of voter fraud. Advocates argued that the electoral college would inhibit an election from hinging on the votes of any single state, while detractors pointed out that voter suppression would be disincentivized in an exclusively popular vote election.

The voter fraud conversation continued further. The prospect of a national voter ID card was broached; although some regarded it as redundant to a drivers license, a consensus was reached that such a requirement would be reasonable so long as all costs were subsidized. The subject shifted slightly to ballot harvesting, with a dialogue forming around the implications of this legal but potentially fraud-facilitating practice. The point was raised that however problematic, the activity may only incentivize selective ballot collection rather than outright fraud. 

Overall a fruitful and highly engaging discussion, this roundtable somewhat lacked the consistency of previous conversations. However, there was active and eager participation from many different perspectives.