Our Elections, in Hindsight

The 2020 Presidential election was the most highly anticipated election in recent history. The amount of attention the race received was critical in highlighting the flaws in our electoral process. From primaries, to debate structure and polling, and especially voting, Americans saw that there were improvements to be made moving forward. We can always stand to improve our elections, and we should use our post-election clarity to initiate change before the issue slips from the forefront of our collective memory.

The first area that could use improvement is the primary process. As it stands right now, the candidates most popular in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina have an edge over candidates elsewhere. Even including Super Tuesday, many states cast their votes before a single swing state (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, or Florida) votes on a candidate. While New Hampshire is considered by some to be a swing state, it has gone blue in five straight elections. How could this order possibly be beneficial to either party electorally? I see no benefit for 18 states that have very little influence on the general election to give certain candidates artificial momentum that could sway their results in states that decide the election. By the time our six swing states get the chance to vote, most candidates have exited the race. States that are fairly irrelevant in the general election should not decide which candidates the swing states can vote for. Both parties could benefit from knowing early on who are and aren’t viable candidates where it matters in the general election.

One solution could be to rearrange the order in which primaries are held, with swing states being among the first to vote. This adjustment would give momentum to candidates that prove to be viable in the general election. Swing states are prioritized in the general election, and I don’t see why that sentiment should not extend to the primaries. Some have suggested having all the primaries be on the same day. I don’t think this is as effective, however, as simply adjusting the order of states’ primaries. In one big nationwide primary, there may be too many candidates for any one of them to get more than just a few percentage points of the vote.

The presidential debates were subject to intense scrutiny from the media and the public alike. While the primary debates were fairly unremarkable, pretty much everyone can agree that the first debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was disastrous. The Commission on Presidential Debates was forced to make a mid-season adjustment in order to save the final debate from pandemonium. The major adjustment made was shutting an opponent’s microphone off for two minutes when a candidate is answering a question. After an answer by one candidate and rebuttal by the other, both microphones were on. This structure was key in corralling an overzealous candidate like Donald Trump.

In the future, I doubt turning off microphones will be a necessary measure to take, but I wouldn’t be fully opposed to the Commission adopting the measure permanently as a failsafe. In a good, spirited debate, it wouldn’t have an effect. This measure, however, can prevent debates from going off the rails in the first place. While Primary debates are generally subject to more interruptions, this new rule is impractical for their formatting. Shutting off microphones is only effective in much smaller debate settings. My recommendation would be to have this measure in place strictly for presidential debates on an as-needed basis, rather than an automatic part of the debate. If a debate starts to get out of hand, the adjustment can be made in order to restore order.

Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, voting looked extremely different for this election. Early voting and voting by mail skyrocketed in popularity in order to keep crowd size at the polls to a minimum. While these two processes’ unfamiliarity caused them to be met with skepticism, they both were effective in increasing participation in a secure manner while being mindful of the pandemic. However, there are plenty of improvements to be made for future elections.

The first adjustment that should be made is to start counting mail-in and early in-person ballots before the election. Florida, our likely most experienced state regarding mail-in ballots, began counting votes 22 days before Election Day. Their preemptive action is what allowed accurate results to arrive so quickly on Election Day, despite their large population. Every state could benefit from beginning to count mail in votes and early votes in order to help deliver faster results. Of course, no vote count of any kind should be released publicly, as it would dramatically sway the election. Heavy penalties should also be in place to deter anyone from leaking sensitive information illegally to any media, campaign, or civilian. With a longer voting process, there must be an added emphasis on the security of information.

In the near future we will surely hear calls from to abolish the Electoral College. While this proposal does have some merit, it’s probably not as great of an idea as some people may think. The Electoral College ensures that groups who may not have overwhelming numbers in a concentrated area, such as farmers in the Midwest, still have a say in who their president is. In an election without the Electoral College, these people would be ignored in favor of the urban areas of California and the Northeast. While the sum populations of rural areas across the country equate to the sum of urban areas across the country, rural populations are significantly more spread out, making it much more difficult for their voice to be heard across the country without the Electoral College. While it needs to be improved, the Electoral College is essential for many voters to have their voices heard and should not go anywhere.

The most crucial improvement to make is to eliminate the prospect of faithless or unpledged electors. Americans vote with the expectation and understanding that their vote influences the electoral college. There is no reason that confidence should be strained by the looming thought of an elector potentially going rogue. Rogue and unpledged electors have the power to take away representation for thousands of voters, despite being unelected and largely anonymous. All electors should be required to pledge to follow the wishes of the voters they represent, and any elector who breaks this pledge should be subject to steep penalties.

In conclusion, our elections have room for improvement in various areas. While I would call the 2020 election cycle a success, it was not flawless. It is essential for elected officials to act promptly to improve our elections, while the issue is still fresh on everyone’s minds. I am confident that the 2022 and 2024 election cycles will be more efficient and secure, and met with enthusiasm from more voters than ever before.