The deliberation event I attended was at Webster's Bookstore and the topic was the Electoral College. The exigence for this topic was the election of Donald Trump through the electoral college rather than Hillary Clinton by the popular vote. The question we were to deliberate was:
Should we change the Electoral College system? If so, how?
I thought this topic would have lead to a polarizing uncomfortable debate fueled by party politics and name-calling. That would have been exciting - but unfortunately that didn't happen, to the benefit of the group.
The venue for the deliberation was not ideal. Webster's Bookstore is a cramped location, especially on a Sunday afternoon. The deliberation began with the moderators standing on a stage 10 feet in front of those participating. It was hard to hear the presenters, although they were standing on a stage. Because it was hard to hear, the group improvised and sent a team member to each of the 4 tables to help moderate the discussion.
The first "option" the deliberators discussed was to keep the Electoral College as it is. The second "option" the deliberators discussed was to get rid of the electoral college and create a new system. Those were the only two "options." For this deliberation we weren't discussing specific ways the electoral system could be improved in each approach and which the audience liked most. Instead, through these options the moderators asked: is it good or bad and what would you propose? This lead to little to no direction to the deliberation-which was bad. It seemed as if there was no room for consensus, in the cramped dungeon of Webster's Bookstore.
For the first "option" my group quickly agreed that we should keep the points given out to each state and remove the electors. The group agreed that the electors just add another layer of complexity that isn't needed. We thought this was the best solution because it gives smaller states some power over more populous ones. There was one person who disagreed with that proposal and thought that after winning some percentage of the popular vote the electoral college should be ignored. But he also thought that electoral college should be used below a popular vote percentage threshold.
For the second "option" my group, with some direction from the moderator realized that the viability of the electoral college depends on the proportionality of the electoral votes. So we asked the question of how electoral votes are proportioned to the moderator. The moderator told us that they are given out by population with an additional two electors given to each state for senators. So the group agreed that if the two electoral votes, given to states for senators, were removed the electoral system would be more fair, i.e. more proportional.
To wrap up the deliberation and try to bring the groups back together, a representative from each team explained what was discussed in each small group. Every group believed that the electoral college was the best way to determine the president, with small tweaks, except one. That group thought enough representation was given to the small states in congress. No overall consensus was reached, but most people thought the current system was good enough.
Recommendations:
- Webster's Bookstore should no longer be used as a venue for deliberations. However, if there are no other places avaliable, give the moderators microphones or even more dramatic: MEGAPHONES.
- For deliberation events groups need to be more specific in their approaches to give direction to the deliberation.
