By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation,” The Electoral College: Protecting the Public or Diminishing Democracy,” centered on two main options, keep the Electoral College intact as it is or get rid of it and create a new system. The introduction to the afternoon’s discussion first mentioned what was on all our minds- the recent presidential election of Donald Trump by the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. The issue is a hot topic currently because of this, and many are calling for some sort of change to the system. Personal stakes were gaged, for example, concerns of the votes of individuals meaning little, and on the other side, concern that giving individuals too much unrestrained power can lead to problems. For option one, the discussion centered on keeping the Electoral College in tact as is, and that our top priority would be staying with the status quo. We talked about the pros of maintaining, such as that the Electoral College ensure all states are involved with selecting the President, that it guarantees certainty in the presidential election, and that our Founding Fathers placed it in our Constitution because they thought it best. Everyone in my group thought the E. C. at least needs some sort of change. We talked about how swing states gives power to those in certain states over others, and that it can elect a President the people did not majority vote for. And going to the extreme of abolishing the E. C. entirely might give too much power to uneducated masses of voters, to appoint unqualified leaders. The second option, getting rid of the E. C. and creating a new system hones in on making key improvements to the structure of it. We weighed the idea of appointing electors to districts across state borders, but realize gerrymandering can still be a problem. One person even brought up having the populous directly elect the electors, who then vote for and elect the President. An idea that electoral votes not state winner takes all was also weighed, but the tradeoff that that is basically a double popular vote then. We also thought of how difficult it would be to amend the Constitution to get rid of it, or make significant changes. And finally, as a joke we contended the Presidential nominees should just fight it out in a cage match to see who’s the next leader. Analysis/Reflection Personally, I do not feel as if I got as much out of the deliberation as I would have liked. The main issue is in my own lack of greater knowledge on the political system of the US, specifically around this issue. This deliberation topic is more on the difficult side because it requires a higher level of beforehand knowledge, but I definitely learned and understood this issue more afterwards. Additionally, I learned important knowledge of how to become a better moderator from this deliberation. Contrary to the first deliberation I attended, this one’s structure was on two options as opposed to three. I find the discussion to be more centered on each individual option at a time when it’s not just two ends of the spectrum. Two options resulted in conversation that tends to follow to a third middle ground quickly, without equal consideration to the two options. As a moderator in the future with two options I would make sure to diligently steer the conversation to the two opposites. Their format of two moderators to each group, who did not switch out for the options did not lead to as clear a distinction of when to begin discussing the second option. I learned that a clear division between approaches/options is key to get the most deliberation achieved. Finally, I observed the key issues discussed and the possible solutions weighed, depended on one’s belief that the people should have less restricted power, or stay more balanced by a system like the Electoral College. These differing, fundamental beliefs were not mentioned explicitly in discussion but both sides respectfully understood and listened to other’s opinions nonetheless.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|