Presented in Partnership with 
ARGUING YES
Columnist for The New York Times
ARGUING YES
Law Professor; Supreme Court Contributor to ABC News
ARGUING NO
Author of “Why We Need the Electoral College”
ARGUING NO
Law Professor & Former Chairman for the Federal Election Commission
MODERATOR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
This week:
- The Electoral College: Is it necessary for deciding the 2024 election outcome?
- A closer look at Americans’ opinions on how the presidency should be determined
- Our CEO’s Wall Street Journal op-ed on a third presidential debate
- Your Sunday reading list
In two weeks, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump will find out if their presidential campaigns have been successful when voters submit their ballots. The final New York Times/Siena College national poll is showing the race is close, with a small chance Election Day could end in a tie. Five presidents in total have won their election without winning the popular vote. If Hillary Clinton had won based on her winning the popular vote in 2016, there never would have been a Donald Trump presidency. While one candidate will come up on top with the direct popular vote, the actual winner of the 2024 election will depend on who reaches 270 or more votes from the Electoral College.
But some people are once again questioning whether the Electoral College has value in our modern democracy.
A growing majority of people — 63% of Americans according to the Pew Research Center — would instead prefer the winner be the person receiving the most votes as the deciding factor. They argue it doesn’t give the full story of what Americans in certain states are voting for. Those who favor keeping it argue it is a check to ensure a more balanced system and smaller states are as represented as larger states like California.
Should the Electoral College be left in the past? How do you think it will play a role in November? Listen to the debate now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube, and join our community on our website. As always, let us know what you think.
DEBATING THE DATA
Should the election be decided based on the popular vote?
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?
YES: Jamelle Bouie
“The Electoral College, as designed, has basically outlived its usefulness. In the United States, where executive power is singular, where it’s not tied to the legislature, where it is essentially winner-take-all, there’s only one president and only one party can occupy the presidency. In that kind of situation, it does become a political issue… for the winner to not have received a majority of the vote.”
NO: Tara Ross
“The Electoral College helps us when we are our most angry and our most divided. It’s actually when we need the Electoral College the most because it reminds us to come together as Americans and to reach a hand across the aisle to those who aren’t entirely like us. The result tends to be coalition-building within cities across lines that might normally divide us. The beauty of the Electoral College is that it balances us.”
YES: Kate Shaw
“The Electoral College system as it has developed, which diverges quite significantly from the originally designed scheme, has had some deeply troubling consequences. The scheme exacerbates polarization and divisions and creates this distorted sense of the country. The idea that the Framers intended a system in which the presidency would be decided by a pretty arbitrary subset of the states with no role for other states or their voters is pretty hard to defend.”
NO: Bradley A. Smith
“There are practical advantages to the Electoral College. It curbs fraud, allows for local election rules tailored to local conditions, allows for experimentation with voting procedures like voting by mail, and avoids the catastrophic possibility of a national recount. The Electoral College fosters governing majorities that are generally more stable over time and thus creates more freedom and more prosperity. Let’s be careful that we don’t throw something away unless we understand why we have it.”
America Deserves A Real Presidential Debate
Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump only met once on the debate stage this election season. In The Wall Street Journal this week, our CEO Clea Conner advocates for a return to real debate: Not the dueling press conferences Americans have come to know as debates. She argues that debate is a critical function of the democratic process, and Americans deserve better. Read more.
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Six Political Memoirs Worth Reading
Franklin Foer | October 23, 2024
The Atlantic
Watch Franklin’s debate on whether social media is good for democracy
Sweden’s Immigration “Paradigm Shift”
Ayaan Hirsi Ali | October 24, 2024
Courage.Media
Watch Ayaan’s debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace
‘Back to Starbucks’ Could Have a Retro Feel—and Valuation
Spencer Jakab | October 23, 2024
The Wall Street Journal
Watch Spencer’s debate on whether small investors can beat the street
Sinwar’s Death Gives Bibi a Boost—but Not Much More
Daniel C. Kurtzer and Aaron David Miller | October 23, 2024
Foreign Policy
Watch Aaron’s debate on whether flexing America’s muscles in the Middle East will make things worse
Keep Democracy Strong
Debate is essential to a healthy democracy, providing a space where diverse ideas can be shared, challenged, and understood. Open to Debate upholds this tenet by fostering open, civil conversations on the issues that matter most. 100% of your donation will be allocated to new programming, help keep the conversation going, and strengthen our democratic process.
