On February 18th, we held our deliberation “Conditions for Admissions” in which we discussed three different types of admissions policies that Penn State could enact. On February 28th, I attended the deliberation “The Elephant and Donkey in the Room: Addressing the Electoral College” in which possible adjustments to the electoral college system were discussed.

Both deliberations did a good job of prioritizing the key values at stake. In my deliberation, we emphasized the importance of diversity as well as merit and background on a college campus- specifically Penn State. In the deliberation I attended, the needs of the people in relation to the electoral college was emphasized.

Each deliberation also did well with weighing the pros and cons of each solution. There was a lot of discussion in my deliberation over the effectiveness of each approach, how well each policy could be implemented, and what each approach could take away from or give to the Penn State experience. The deliberation I attended encouraged a lot of discussion about the validity of each approach, the legality of it, how the American people would respond to it, and how it could be introduced effectively.

Although there was a lot of discussion, there was not a great information base in the deliberation I attended. There was no clear explanation about the current electoral college, nor were the groups super informed about their respective approaches. Any questions that dug further beyond a vague explanation were met with the same explanation over again. That being said, each approach was approached with very diverse viewpoints- so it certainly beat the deliberation that I held and moderated in that respect. While we had a lot of information about Penn State’s admissions policy and our respective approaches, we only had two attendees- so diversity in opinion was a little more limited.

Also, within the deliberation I attended, there was some controversy over respecting and considering the opinions of others. Unfortunately, one attendee attempted to dominate the entire conversation- even going so far as to speak over the leaders of each approach. The moderators handled it with grace and did their best to redirect the conversation, but it was still frustrating for most of the deliberation. On the other hand, our group didn’t have much issue with respecting and considering the opinions of others- but that also goes hand in hand with our lack of diversity in opinion.

There was some problems with mutual comprehension that went unresolved in the deliberation I attended. I’m still unsure how the second approach, in which the current system was to be modified by implementing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, would change anything. It was repeatedly said that this was sort of the current system, but would make it legal instead of suggested, which would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of the electoral college.

In my deliberation, there were issues with presenting a broad range of solutions. While all of the solutions are vastly different, none of them are particularly new, and all of them are already somewhat in practice in some places. We could have done a better job of giving new takes and spins to each approach to make them a little better for discussion.