Constitutional Changes

The speaker suggests two changes to the Constitution. Firstly, they propose replacing the electoral college system with a ranked choice voting system to empower third-party candidates and give voters more representation. Secondly, they suggest reframing abortion as a human rights issue rather than a privacy issue to provide a more solid foundation for abortion rights and potentially secure government funding. These changes aim to promote fairness, individual freedom, and the protection of rights. If it were up to me to change two elements of the Constitution, I would first change Article II, Section 1 as it pertains to the electoral college system. Instead of utilizing the current system, I would advocate for a ranked choice voting system. In a ranked choice voting system, multiple individuals would run for office as shown in the single transferable vote video from CLAS. In practice, within a presidential election, this would look like the following. If five people run, citizens would rank their candidates from a range 1-5. If anyone is above the threshold with over 50% of votes, they would immediately win. If there is no majority winner after counting first choices, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and voters who picked that candidate as their first choice would have their votes count for their next choice candidate. This process would continue until a candidate wins with more than half the votes. In this case, it would deviate slightly from the video seen in CLAS because there would not be multiple candidates chosen. According to different sources, including FairVote, a strong advocate for ranked choice voting, ranked choice voting has reached over 13 million voters in 51 cities, counties, and states in the U.S. Various influential people were in support of electoral reform through RCV as well, such as U.S. Senator and 2020 Presidential Primary Candidate Elizabeth Warren and 2020 Presidential Primary Candidate Andrew Yang. One of the primary reasons for this is because RCV empowers third-party voter candidates to have an equal footing in elections because it works to deconstruct the hold that the two-party system has on voter choice. Before we get into this, it is important to acknowledge the pitfalls of the current system outlined in the U.S. Constitution, the Electoral College. According to National Archives and the Jungle Primary Module 3 video, the Electoral College consists of various electors and each state is given a certain number of them based on the representation in Congress. Each candidate running for president has their own group of electors, which is known as a slate, and these slates are typically loyal to that candidate. When the general election comes around, voters are in reality voting for their presidential candidate's preferred electors, as opposed to the president themselves. Then, these electors convene and cast their votes for president, making it different than the popular vote. The first issue here is that individuals do not play a direct role in who gets chosen for president. In the past, there have even been instances in which the candidate who wins the popular vote does not win the election, such as the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The second issue is that in most states, the candidate who wins the majority of the popular vote will receive all of the state's electoral votes, which impacts proportionality in terms of representation of the entire state. And the third issue is that third party candidates are essentially lost. If a third party candidate has support from people across different geographical areas, it would be exceedingly difficult for these voters to have enough representation for their vote to matter. And difficult for the third party candidate to secure any electoral votes to win. This is where rank-choice voting comes in. According to a study done on the improved electoral performance of third party candidates done by Simmons and Gutierrez, there is evidence to suggest that these candidates do have increased support. In a hypothetical rank-choice voting system, they found a strong correlation between RCV and voter support among third party candidates. Considering the fact that 60-70% of Americans expressed interest in a third party candidate, this would allow for those individuals' voices to be heard. Voters would have more representation and play an active role in who gets chosen per president. Modern scholars aren't the only ones who indicate there being a benefit to RCV. In the social contract, Rousseau had a strong favor for people's sovereignty, and his view on natural law theory was shaped by the freedom and liberty of the individual. This is something that can be interpreted as him being in favor of a voting system such as rank-choice voting, given the amount of freedom it gives to people to choose who is going to lead them. Although our human nature is a state in which people are free and equal, the quality of life is not ideal. Therefore, as part of the social contract with the government, individuals sacrifice their freedom to the general will. This is where all individuals are subjected to the will of the majority. If individuals are able to play a more direct role in voting, the result would more accurately depict the general will and promote the common good. Moving away from rank-choice voting, the second change I would make is shifting the right to abortion from a privacy issue and instead framing it as a human rights issue. The Supreme Court upheld abortion rights and considered this right to fall under the umbrella of an inherent right to privacy afforded in the Constitution. However, there is constitutional fragility in terms of abortion rights that are based on privacy. The right to privacy relies heavily on judicial interpretation, meaning that changes in the Supreme Court could impact it easily, therefore fundamentally changing abortion rights for all women. As opposed to relying on individuals that can be influenced by public opinion, the Supreme Court, changing this part of the Constitution would give abortion rights a more solid foundation. Additionally, labeling it as a human right could be a step toward ensuring funding for it as opposed to viewing it as an expensive private choice. In breaking the abortion deadlock by Eileen McDonough, she reframed the abortion issue in the same way. As opposed to viewing it as a choice for women to do what they want with their body, McDonough asserts that it falls along the lines of the right of the woman to consent to what another entity does to her body. This notion being considered a human rights issue alongside the Equal Protection Clause would solidify a woman's ability to choose what happens to her body and potentially secure government funding for it. Additionally, in two treatises of government, Locke gives a foundation for individual rights and personal autonomy, elements that can be interpreted as being in support of abortion rights as well. He also emphasizes the right to liberty, which is the ability to make choices without unnecessary interference. This can extend to reproductive rights. Even with the social contract in which people consent to being ruled by government, the reason for the government is to protect individuals' natural rights according to Locke. The right that they give up when entering the social contract is the right to preserve slash maintain order and enforce the laws of nature, not all of their rights. Reproductive rights, if framed as a human rights issue, would need to be protected by the government in the same way that other natural rights are. Rousseau's idea of freedom and liberty discussed in the social contract can be applied here too, in the sense that he believed that it is the state's job to, in all circumstances, ensure freedom and liberty of all individuals. This would include the personal autonomy seen in the right for a woman to choose what happens to her own body. This constitutional change would address the idea of positive and negative rights too, which we discussed in Module 3 and saw in the case of Gideon B. Wainwright. Negative rights are ones in which individuals are protected from interference from others, while positive rights ensure that there is an obligation on the government's part to provide services to individuals. This case exemplifies the positive right of the government ensuring that a defendant has counsel. In this case, the government would provide legal assistance to an individual who cannot afford it. Ultimately, in the context of abortion, abortion would be framed as a positive right as opposed to a negative right. Reframing abortion as a human rights issue and a positive right would ensure that it is both protected and that funding is provided for those who cannot afford it. Transitioning from an electoral college system to a rank-choice voting system, and clearly redefining abortion as a human rights issue as opposed to a privacy rights issue, are the two changes that I would implement when considering the Constitution.