Civic Issues: "De-Tribalizing" the Mainstream Arguments of Today

Civic Issue #5: To Increase or Not to Increase: The Issue of a $15 Minimum Wage

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Increase it to $15 an hour.”

“No, that will throw everything out of whack.”

“People need a livable wage.”

“But, inflation will catch right up!”

If you either work or follow politics, there is a decent chance that you have heard someone bring up the issue of increasing the federal minimum wage at one point or another. The above arguments are only a few of the many that help to characterize our national conversation on this very contentious issue.

It is clear that many people do not share similar viewpoints on the topics for a variety of reasons, from having a low-earning job to caring about the economic impacts of a federal rise on minimum wage. But what does each side believe is the best solution?

Before I get into that, I would like to hit on a few foundational components of this conversation on minimum wage. According to the International Labour Organization, minimum wage is defined as “the minimum amount of remuneration that an employer is required to pay wage earners for the work performed during a given period, which cannot be reduced by collective agreement or an individual contract.” In short, as many of you likely know, minimum wage is the absolute smallest amount of money that a wage-worker can earn in a given period of time, and it is put in place so that employers cannot offer an unreasonably small or unfair amount of money to their employees. In the United States, the minimum wage is set at $7.25. It is also important to note that the minimum wage for a specific state, city, or company can be greater than the federal minimum wage, as pointed out by Debt.org, but it is illegal for any of the three entities to fall beneath the federal wage.

As I have done in nearly all of these posts, I would like to point out that not every member of the Right or Left agrees with their respective side of the political continuum on every issue, minimum wage included. However, for the sake of making this blog post relatively straightforward and easy to follow, I intend to include arguments that are relatively generalizable to each side of the political spectrum.

The Left, as a generality, is a proponent of the raise in the United States’s federal minimum wage. Many members of the Left support a nation-wide raise to $15 an hour, where others support a raise to a smaller-than-15 but larger-than-7.25 wage. As represented by a graphic from the Pew Research Center, most 2016 Hillary Clinton supporters (a little over 80%) supported this rather drastic raise. This statistic encapsulates very recent attitudes from the Left towards the general idea of a federal minimum wage increase.

Many politicians are outspoken in the debate to institute a federal increase as well. There have been numerous bills proposed in Congress that have been aimed at addressing this “wage emergency,” such as the Senate’s Raise the Wage Act of 2017 (Congress.gov) and a House bill of the same name but for the year 2019 (Congress.gov).  Bernie Sanders, a prominent member of the Senate, has campaigned on economic equality (including this wage raise) and, so, has appealed to many on the Left for this reason. Nancy Pelosi and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have also spoken up on behalf of such issues more recently.

The Left, and more specifically, progressives, largely concern themselves with ensuring social and economic equality. Accordingly, the minimum wage issue one of the main priorities for this demographic. They argue that the current minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is much too meager a wage for someone to live an affordable and/or comfortable lifestyle. They believe that, in order to adjust for inflation, a wage raise is a necessary tool to help a large group of workers who struggle to make ends meet (Vox).

The Right, on the other hand, holds a different view. They believe that it would be economically disadvantageous to raise the minimum wage to $15. A typical Right-wing view is that even if there are positive short-term effects of raising the federal minimum wage, inflation would ultimately raise to match the circumstance, thus devaluing the raised wage altogether. An article by Investopedia states: “Former McDonald’s CEO Ed Rensi says a higher minimum wage will cost jobs and lead to the closing of many small businesses. In theory, raising minimum wage forces businesses to raise prices, which spurs inflation.” The belief here is that raising the minimum wage will prompt businesses to raise prices in order to compensate for the higher wages their employees would be earning. Consequently, inflation would increase other financial dimensions which would work to devalue the wage in the end. This could also result in the closing of smaller business and firms, as Forbes delves into.

Another Right-wing argument against a $15 minimum wage is that that setting such a controversial and potentially dangerous wage-floor borders on a government overreach. When Obama proposed an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10 for some federal workers a few years ago during his State of the Union address, the response was unpopular. Pam Bondi, the then-Florida Attorney General said that Obama’s move was “an overreach by the federal government…never been seen before” (USA Today). That was an increase of a few dollars. The outrage, one could reasonably assume, would be much larger today with plans to more than double that $7.25.

Also noteworthy is one of the fundamental reasons why Right think a $15 minimum wage is so problematic. According to the New Jersey Business and Industry Association, in a short article, it was said there should be a focus on adjusting the skill levels of workers, instead of the minimum wage, because it invigorates our economy and pushes for more competition.

My thoughts on the issue are somewhat mixed. It is definitely true that something needs to be done in order to allow people to get a livable wage. I do not want to see anyone suffer, something that I think can be said of most other Republicans, Democrats, or Americans. I think that is unfortunate that any that works should have to struggle with finances, especially when they were in a rough situation and higher education might not have been a solid option. (Although, trade school…)

However, I also believe that such a wage increase would be a bad idea. There would definitely have to be catch up from businesses in order to account for this large wage increase, which would have a ripple effect throughout the companies and then the economy as a whole. I also think that, if wage increases were necessary, they should be handled at smaller levels of power. This allows states or cities (and so on) to determine wage prices that are best for their area and not the (diverse, broad, and heterogeneous) country as a whole. Finally, I believe that our system is competitive for a reason. I think that people should be paid for the skillset and work they do. I do not think that working at a fast food restaurant is worth $15/hour. The required skill set can be found in a 15 year old, and they definitely don’t deserve a “living wage” for it. I think raising the minimum wage would devalue education as well, because it would position people earning $15/hour more in pace with those who attended college in order to make a more sizable salary. I think the competitiveness of our system is a blessing as well as a curse.

What can we do moving forward?

1. We need to find appropriate sources that are as up-to-date and objective as possible. As explained by Quartz, there are a multitude of studies that show favorable inclinations towards both raising the minimum wage and staying the same. These studies are completed by usually reputable economists as well. One must possess a prudent mindset when reading these studies and look into the future to see possible outcomes. If we must parse through many sources, we should do it realistically.
2. We need to find an intersection between the issues. Many people approach this issue from a logical standpoint, while others invoke a humanity dimension in the argument. One must find the point at which everyone can agree moving forward is both a solution that considers the realities of a wage increase while also understands and accounts for struggles and lack of opportunities along the way. This can be a sliding scale, however, so we must find some semblance of common ground.
3. Pursue discussions tactfully, and don’t make the assumption that someone is asking for money because they are lazy or that someone is refusing to raise the minimum wage because they are greedy. Either could be true, but it is not true by default. Assess someone’s point-of-view before rebutting what they say.

Whether its by convincing others or finding that common ground, we must, can, and will find a solution on this issue.

Civic Issue #4: The Intersection of Free Speech and Hate Speech

As the social landscape in America has aged, undergone a myriad of changes, and been subject to different interpretations, so have many of the tenets and norms upon which this landscape was formed. Perhaps one of the most critical of these tenets and norms is free speech, outlined in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. What makes free speech so important is the idea that speech generates new ideas, invites criticism, and allows for the unadulterated exchange of ideas between at least two entities. These processes allow for members of a society to use their voice in order to refine and create the best version of that society possible.

That’s not saying free speech does not curtail the occurrence of conflict. As a matter of fact, it is rather the opposite: it encourages it. Free speech makes certain that every individual has the ability to voice their own authentic opinions and not be compelled by the state to speak or act in a certain way. In other words, you see more public, verbal conflict in an environment where free speech and open dialogue are encouraged, in stark contrast to an authoritarian government where news, social media, and shared opinions are filtered and suppressed by the regime. The George W. Bush Presidential Center goes so far as to say that “[authoritarian regimes] believe not only that their monolithic governments should have their own voice but also that theirs should be the only voice,” and those that manage to slip through the cracks are “dealt with harshly.”

 

 

 

 

 

I mentioned that many of the leading tenets in America have shifted, including that of free speech. But what does that mean exactly? I would argue that, in light of the social change we have seen over the past one hundred years (from suffrage to a rise in racial equality), many in the contemporary American society have organized efforts to criminalize hate speech. Well, what is hate speech and how does it compare with free speech? And herein lies the central issue of today’s blog post.

Hate speech is defined by the Encyclopedia Britannica as “speech or expression that denigrates a person or persons on the basis of (alleged) membership in a social group identified by attributes such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, physical or mental disability, and others.” It could also be described as a subset of free speech wherein the speech is prejudicial and aimed towards a certain protected class. I mentioned above that many people have launched efforts to make hate speech illegal due to its negative, solely-detrimental nature. However, these efforts have not come without counter-efforts. Why? The contention with the topic of hate speech has to do largely with the argument involving to what extent the government should be involved in regulating free speech.

There are generally two main perspectives in the hate speech argument, but before I delve into these lines of reasoning, I want to point out beliefs regarding hate speech or free speech can (and do) transcend party and ideological lines. However, for the sake of clarity in this blog post, I will be exploring the two stereotypically-linked viewpoints to the progressive and traditional movements in our society and how they view the topic of “hate speech.”

The progressive wing of our society is more likely to stand in support of criminalizing hate speech. Progressive platforms in the United State stand for championing the rights of minorities, protected classes, workers, and so on – in short, they support the ideals and practice “social reform,” as summed up by the Oxford Dictionary when defining the term “progressivism.” It reasonably follows that these social progressives would be against the concept of hate speech and seek to have the practice of such an action criminalized. (Refer to the graph that follows this explanation, which was recorded by Hidden Tribes.)

A general progressive argument, laid out by author and philosopher Jeremy Waldron, ensures that “objects of hate speech are deprived of the assurance that the society regards them as people of equal dignity” (New York Times). In other words, the progressive camp is apt to believe that hateful speech incites violence against those that need protection and undermines the efforts of seeking out the social progress that they believe they deserve.

Donald  Trump’s name is often invoked in the conversation of hate speech, because he has often been accused of it himself or emboldening others to perform it. His presidency has been attributed, by progressives, to a rise in hate speech and bigotry, which has played a role in the national conversation the issue. In sum, hate speech is perceived by progressives as an enemy to the societal advancement they believe is long overdue.

Speaking generally, the traditional side of this argument holds the position that hate speech is not a real phenomenon, at least not one that can be addressed legally. Everyone can reasonably agree on the fact that it is true that people say hateful things; “anti-criminalization of free speech” proponents don’t inherently believe that hate speech is a good or respectful thing. Rather, they believe that the government should not have a say in what things can and cannot be said by and to others. In an excerpt form the Encyclopedia Britannica, the general position of this belief is better fleshed out:  “Although those who take that position [of criminalizing hate speech] acknowledge the odious nature of the messages of hate speech, they maintain that state censorship is a cure that causes more harm than the disease of bigoted expression.”

It is believed by these more traditional Americans that much more damage can be done by opening the door to limiting speech than by the ugly things that espoused through hate speech itself. This is due to the fact that many people are quick to qualify the expression of political opinions as hate speech. For example, some that do not believe in transgenderism have been accused of communicating hate speech by sharing that belief. (Refer to the Youtube video below for one such example.) 

The concern with criminalizing hate speech in this political context is that it could set a dangerous precedent that could allow the government to limit opposition speech if it was deemed hate speech, therein reinforcing the norms of an authoritative government. Traditional Americans take issue with the notion that there’s is often a blurred between hate speech and speech one doesn’t like, making day-to-day political debates much more dangerous. Hate speech, in conclusion, is perceived by more traditional Americans as gross speech, but speech that should not be shut down and instead met with more speech in return.

My take on the issue definitely leans one direction. I want to begin by saying that I think hate speech is grotesque. Nobody should be verbally maligned simply because they belong to a specific group. But when actual hate speech does occur, I don’t think the speaker should face punitive measures. I believe that, as was described on the traditional side of the argument, people that say hateful things should be met with more discussion. The reasons why they are wrong should be explained to them instead of those ideas being shut down, which may have a backfire effect anyways, pushing them closer to those beliefs.

I also believe that we need to do better in terms of locating actual hate speech, as opposed to crying “hate speech” when we hear things we don’t like. Hate speech has a clear motive – to spread hatred. We must use judgement when determining what things are truly hateful.

The president of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, shares these sentiments. In an interview with NPR, she explained, “The most effective way to counter the potential negative effects of hate speech…is not through censorship, but rather through more speech.” Her take is that speech should be discouraged through words and not by being shut down; open dialogue allows for more pointed understandings of why someone is wrong or not justified.

I think Americans of today should focus on two things:

1. Don’t spread hatred. It does much more harm than good in this country. It only seeks to divide, when, as Americans, we’re supposed to come together. Think before you speak.
2. Don’t tell someone to stop saying hateful things once they’ve started. Instead, challenge them. Explain your positions or other positions. Use your freedom of speech to your advantage instead of curbing someone else’s.

Civic Issue #3: Sexual Harassment: Due Process & the Victim versus the Accused

 

In the last few years, there have been many emerging social movements intended to bring attention to accusations of sexual harassment or assault in the workplace and, more generally, in the everyday lives of everyday Americans. #MeToo, Time’s Up, and Believe All Women are three such social movements that have successfully sparked plentiful conversations in the United States on this issue, be they constructive or otherwise. Stories like Harvey Weinstein’s alleged harassment of many actresses or the widely-publicized case between previously-prospective Supreme Court Justice and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford are only some of the examples from which the impetus for these movements was born. Regardless, it indisputable that occurrences of sexual harassment and assault have been drawn into the spotlight and given more attention more recently.

While there are obviously those who are either hardwired to be one of these reprehensible offenders or who experience a temporary lapse in judgement and commit these heinous acts, the nation-wide controversy has nothing to do with whether or not sexual assault or harassment is bad. Most people’s opinions land in the affirmative – that sexual deviance is indeed bad – and that stance is hardly disputed around the country.

Instead, many people take issue with how cases of sexual abuse are approached. Alternatively stated, many people believe that these cases are mishandled and follow one of the two (if not both) scenarios: there is not enough tenderness taken to accommodate the victims or many people presume the guiltiness of the accused. Either way, these two issues characterize the national controversy surrounding the larger controversy: should all woman be believed? Does not believing them instantly disenfranchise them or other women from coming forward? Shouldn’t the accused be given due process? If not, doesn’t that undercut our entire justice system? Has the believe-all-victims mentality gone too far?

Allow me to delve deeper into the issue and hopefully answer some of these questions.

It is not at all accurate for me to say that one ideological affiliation or political party or even gender grouping has the same opinion on the matter – at least not monolithically and without exception. Many people from many backgrounds hold various opinions, and accordingly, value different aspects of the conversation as a whole. Like I said, while it isn’t fair to group any collection of people together, it is fair to say that the Left generally defends and believes victims and the extent of their experiences, whereas the Right generally defends the rights of the accused as well as those of the victim and his or her right to tell their story.

Speaking broadly, the Left holds the belief that victims should almost always be believed, as well as that they generally don’t fabricate stories of sexual assault. This side of the argument usually posits that being skeptical of victims can make it appear as if those victims are potentially not being believed. Following this premise, this could potentially disenfranchise victims and make it seem as if their opinions are invalid or not worthy of being heard, which could stop other victims from coming forward. Also, the Left is more apt to believe that the accused are guilty of the crimes they have been accused of, which follows in line with the notion that the victim is telling the truth.

As for the Right, their more widespread perspective is not that they don’t disbelieve the women, it’s that the accused have just as much right to defend themselves from accusations as victims do to make them. They invoke the due process argument (that everyone has a right to a fair and speedy trial) and the presumption of innocence (that everyone is innocent until proven guilty). The Right believes that victims also have the protected right to recount their side of the story or their experience and be heard, and that the accused has similar rights.

The Left can often perceive the Right as being anti-victim for not believing their experiences right away. They have also accused the Right of being less sensitive with the victims than they should be. The Right, on the other hand, sees problems with believing all survivors. It often accuses the Left of devaluing and trivializing assault allegations because they are more inclined to beelieve all or most of them on face-value. There is certainly no shortage of controversy within the parameters of this discussion.

So what can be done?

I think both sides contribute very valid points to the conversation as a whole.

I think that all accusations should be taken seriously. Tribal political identities shouldn’t dictate whether a not a victim or accused is believed or not, which is far too often what happens. I think that people need to step back and hear all sides before arriving at any preconceived notions. Every fact, every witness, every perspective, and every piece of evidence should be collected and weighed and given fair and equal consideration.

I don’t think that believing every victim without exception is a safe measure. You see, there have been many accounts of false rape or assault allegations. On that same token, there have been significantly more truthful accusations. The problem with believing every victim unconditionally, though, means that some people can and will be falsely convicted for crimes they haven’t committed. That doesn’t mean that I support not believing those who make accusations, it’s just that I believe every involved party should be involved, and if the accused really committed the terrible act or the accuser orchestrated the story, the one in the wrong should go to jail. Sometimes, neither will happen because there isn’t enough evidence. That’s unfortunate in both regards.

I think for people to start approaching the issue with the same values, we must put value on the principles of the law, like due process and the presumption of innocence, while simultaneously treating every accusation very seriously and every survivor of the alleged abuse as a human being that has suffered. We need to start being more sensitive to their experience without sacrificing the rights of the accused. Finally, we need to shed these tribal identities and group think and look into issues from a more objective lens.

What do you guys think about the issue as a whole?

Civic Issue #2: Pro-Life and Pro-Choice? Takes on Abortion

If I were to ask the general American public which topic of discussion is the most controversial in this day and age, I honestly believe that an overwhelming number of responses would focus on abortion. There are many discussions over whether or not abortion is an acceptable, humane action; some say it takes the life of a developing baby. Conversely, others suggest that restricting abortion is inhumane because they believe it limits the rights and bodily autonomy of the mother. Even more opinions are a mix of the two; being against abortion except in the case of rape or incest or being pro-life only if the mother’s life is not put into danger represent two such arguments.

While there is undoubtedly a lot of uncertainty and speculation in the ongoing abortion conversation, one thing remains abundantly clear: there is an excess of vitriol that exists within the foundations upon which the discussion has been established. It’s important that everyone not only respects the other sides in the context of the discussion but tries to understand their arguments as well. My goal here is to represent each side, as well as propose a course of action with which every side can make a move forward.

The abortion debate is very frequently characterized as a dichotomy, wherein only two arguments are represented: those of pro-life and pro-choice. However, there are also many variant of the opinions, as stated above, that are a mix of these different camps. Usually, someone leans in one direction or the other, believing more strongly one side’s argument over the other. But what are those beliefs?

Let’s start with pro-life:

The pro-life camp basically argues that, after a certain point in the process between the initial sexual interaction to the second trimester of the pregnancy, abortion should be made illegal or criminalized. Some pro-lifers say that abortion becomes immoral following conception – the point at which the egg and sperm meet to form the zygote that will result in a human baby roughly nine months later. Another dimension of this belief is that birth control (from condoms to IUDs to abstinence) should be used in order to prevent a pregnancy, as opposed to an abortion.

Others in the pro-life camp, although likely fewer in number, believe that abortion should be declared illegal after the point at which the baby can first respond to touch (and potentially pain). The consensus on when this point is reached is anywhere from five to eight weeks, according to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. This other sect of the pro-life crowd too believes that abortion, especially in the later stages, should not be legally permissible.

As a whole, those who are pro-life are against abortions in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, and they say that a woman’s bodily autonomy ceases when she is carrying another human being inside of her. While the point at which abortion is acceptable is not entirely agreed upon, pro-lifers generally believe that abortion should never be a choice for a woman to make. They believe that a baby develops characteristics, such as a heartbeat at as early as sixteen days after conception, that truly should affirm their status as human beings and not simply “a bundle of cells” as they are so often referred to. Simply put, those who identify as pro-life do not support abortion for what they would consider gruesome methods. See the video below that describes a second trimester abortion by an OB/GYN.

As far as the pro-choice crowd, their beliefs are obviously vastly different. Many pro-choice advocates worry more for the rights and bodily autonomy on behalf of all women. They reject the premise that life begins at conception, as well as that fetuses feel pain at any point earlier than twenty weeks into a given pregnancy. Many invoke the argument that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not she can have an abortion because it is within her body that the fetus/baby is residing. Another argument that is used in defense of abortion is that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body.

There is not a clear consensus with pro-choicers as to when exactly a fetus becomes a “life” and when it can still ethically be aborted. Many believe that around twenty weeks is about the time at which a child can first feel pain, contrary to the five-to-eight week figure referenced by the pro-life crowd. This twenty-week limit defines in many state abortion regulations the point at which an abortion for any reason other than rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life is unlawful. Others suggest that twenty-four weeks is when fetuses begin feeling pain, a limitation that also plays into many states’ abortion laws.

Across the board for the pro-choice community, it is believed that women have ultimately the biggest say in what choices they can and should be able to make. This raises the issue of bodily autonomy, which is defined as “the idea that we have a fundamental right to choose what happens to our own bodies” by the Abortion Rights Campaign. It is argued that bodily autonomy ensures the right of a women to have abortion, as do the the 14th amendment and a few legal court cases, most notably Roe v. Wade. Below is a video justifying abortion and explaining many of the reasons women get them.

Simply put, opinions on abortion are diverse, varied, and usually very strong, I personally have very solid convictions regarding abortion, and I have essentially explained my stance in one of the two descriptions above. For the sake of deliberating on how to proceed, I won’t reiterate those beliefs – not everyone would agree with me. However, there are a few points with which I think almost everyone can agree:

1. Abortion should never be a first resort, nor should it be used as a form of birth control. There are many alternatives to abortion. Preemptively, one could use birth control or be abstinent until they are ready to take on the possibility of pregnancy. Birth control methods should be readily available for anyone who wishes to have sex. I think that is universally accepted. How that will be done is another story, but most would agree that providing more birth control is more desired than abortions.
2. People really should become more responsible for themselves and their actions. Men should have just as much of an obligation to care for an unwanted baby as the mother who is pregnant. I think people should also focus more on being safe, using protection and not being careless, and not engaging in any situations in which a baby could result without considering that pregnancy may result.
3. It is not acceptable to degrade your political opponents. Labeling someone as anti-women that is pro-life, for example, is not conducive to limiting the number of abortions we see. We need to develop programs or strategies or policies that do that, and name-calling is such an easy way to end a deliberation on any topic.

Abortion has been relevant in the US for years, from Roe v. Wade to today in 2019. Many believe differently, but to find solutions, we must put aside our differences and truly consider our opponents’ arguments.

Civic Issues Blog #1: The Electoral College: Currently Outdated or Relevant Today?

Two-hundred seventy. This number, as one may be able to guess, is the required number of electoral votes that a presidential nominee must obtain before unofficially winning the general election to become the President of the United States of America. The institution that establishes these system of winning electoral votes is called the Electoral College – who would have guessed? The Electoral College was established in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This political tool ensures that states can vote for the President in a way that reflects their population compared to that of other states. In other words, the Electoral College delegates a certain number of electors per state (based on relative population) in order to give each state a much fairer way to vote for and select the President. This step was originally taken to ensure that heavily populated areas with similar values could not have a monopoly on voting in the President; it gave the more rural, less populous areas a similar degree of voice in the election. The Electoral College still exists and is put into use today. However, many believe that the United States has outgrown its need for Electoral College and that it should be abolished. In this blog post, as well as throughout the entire blog as a whole, we will see every side to the issue and reason as to why each argument is valid. This a skill that is important to have in a world as diverse as ours.

The argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is rather consistent with the one that merited its creation in the first place. States vary in population just as they vary in opinions, value, and physical needs, to name a few. This argument contends that diversity of ideas and needs should be represented in the United States government, which is not true of a direct democracy – where the majority rules. Obviously, having a smaller population makes it much more difficult for a state with specific ideals (that likely differ from others) to have an impact on the election of federal officials, e.g. the President, and the decisions that they make for the country. Those supporting this argument would likely state that when each state is given a number of electors that proportionally represents them and their beliefs, it is a much simpler to have a significant voice in the country. Republicans are generally known for painting this view.

The argument in favor of abolishing the Electoral College is, as one may have guessed, diametrically opposite. Those that believe the institution should be eliminated posit that we live in a democratic nation and the means of electing our political figureheads and leaders should reflect these values: those of direct democracy. Those in favor of the Electoral College’s abolishment believe that the majority of the votes should be heard, since they represent the largest portion of the overall populace. They might suggest that when systems like the Electoral College are used, they circumvent the direct wishes of those that use them and diminish the principles of democracy. Instead these individuals would opt to implement a popular vote for the President. Those that usually support this view are likely to align with the Democratic Party.

The first thing to note about the most recent conversation of the Electoral College’s legitimacy is that it came following the 2016 election of Donald Trump over opponent Hillary Clinton. Much of people’s opinions behind whether or not they support any idea can be based on whether or not the institution is beneficial to them. The political parties of the United States’ two-party system have reaped wildly different outcomes from the Electoral College system. Republicans have benefitted from it four times, where their candidate won the 270 electoral-vote majority despite losing the popular vote (with the elections of Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George Bush, and Donald Trump); Democrats have not benefited from the system once.

This motivation, especially in this very contemporary society where things are repeatedly blown out of proportion, carries a significant weight. It has not benefitted Democrats, therefore they generally don’t support; vice-versa for Republicans. Tribal constraints often lead both sides to support their side’s “self-prescribed solution” – whether that regards the Electoral College, abortion, gun control, and so on.

Conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute writer Peter Wallison believes implementing a popular vote system would “do more harm than good” because it would allow for politicians to run on one-issue campaigns, which narrows down the country’s representation even more. Conversely, Lee Collum of KERA News says that changing to a National Popular Vote (NVP) system would “return power from the collective states to the individuals.” Scholarly opinions and professional commentary on the topics reflect different views on how to approach the phenomenon that is the presidential election. However, each party does have a common goal: to find a way to best represent the American people in the Presidential electoral system.

I think it is vastly importantly for both sides to consider that they each have the country’s best interests at heart. I think to burst the bubbles of tribalism, each side must sit down and have discourse regarding the issue at hand. It is important not to presuppose the other side’s motives, which each party does unfailingly. I think to work through solutions on how to find a common goal, it’s important to start at the goal and work backwards,. finding ways to fuse and conjoin two differing methods of actions and gleaning that desired outcome. I believe that the opinions regarding the Electoral College specifically would perhaps meet in the middle. Direct democracy definitely has a place in the United States – for electing those in other government positions. It is also important to listen to the wills of everyone. For the sake of the country as a whole, however, a state’s more generalized representation helps to not drown out the minority (of Flyover states) and give them the footing they need to fairly contribute to voting in the President they deem fit. Regardless of what you think, it’s important that each side is heard, because to achieve positive ends as a country, we have to set aside political differences and learn to compromise aspects of what would otherwise be entirely idealistic situations.