Over this past weekend, I attended a deliberation discussing “The Electoral College.” Many of the other deliberations, including my own, is regarding immigration – which is extremely fitting given the potential changes in immigration laws as an outcome of the presidential election in November. I didn’t want to attend an immigration deliberation (partly due to the fact that my group would most likely be discussing the same issues/topics as another immigration group), so my roommate suggested I attend hers about the Electoral College. Up until this year, I was never into politics but as I began to hear how ‘controversial’ this year’s election was going to be, I started paying closer attention to the news, articles I saw on the internet, and discussions about politics in general. Initially, I didn’t know exactly what we would be talking about in this deliberation, but the group had an issue guide that was very clearly outlined the hour and a half deliberation.
The main topic of the deliberation was whether the electoral college should be kept in tact as it is, or be demolished to create a new system. Prior to this deliberation, I hadn’t thought about making amendments to the electoral college, and wasn’t sure how this group had decided to talk about this. However, once I was reminded of the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular yet did not win the presidential election, I now saw this as an extremely relevant issue.
Of the two ‘options’ (keeping electoral college or making amends to it), the majority of the group was in favor of making amends. As we broke into smaller groups to discuss both sides, my group did agree that it would not be possible to completely demolish the electoral college, given how slowly changes in the government are processed. Primarily, it would be difficult to establish an accurate ‘in-between’ (in between keeping the electoral college and completely demolishing it) that all of congress would approve. Additionally, even if a final decision was reached, these aspects of the government are written in the constitution, and making an amendment would take many, many years to become active.
Nonetheless, the major focal point of our mini group discussion was what the amendment could be. One of the proposed ideas for what could be done to get rid of the electoral college and create a new system would be to introduce a state-by-state proportional system. In this system, electors would be selected in proportion to the votes that are cast for each candidate and/or party, instead of them being selected by a statewide vote. However, in carrying out this change, distributing the votes would be difficult, especially in smaller states and states where the two candidates are close.
All in all, I think this topic is a very tricky one to deal with simply because whatever happens, not everyone will be satisfied. It is impossible for everyone to be in agreement because of how many contrasting opinions there are. Attending this deliberation was an eye-opening experience, as I now have more of an interest in what goes on in today’s politics and the structure of the government.
In regards to your approach to politics and increased interest given the more recent controversies, I find myself in the same situation. Being involved in the conversation is something I’ve personally been trying to work, especially since in the past I felt too uninformed to given an opinion. Going to another deliberation can be awkward at first, but I also found it beneficial. I also attended my roommate’s deliberation, which was about the controversial topic of marijuana. While I didn’t know what to expect, it was definitely a positive experience to be there and hear conversation. I think an advantage to the deliberation you went to was the fact that small groups evaluated both sides. The people who participated in conversation in my group had a clear side on the topic and it seemed all conversation generated around that one side, so bringing up opposition was not acknowledged. I think you make a good point that these topics explored are controversial, and because of that, both sides should be explored.