Politics & Policy
Government, law, and public policy debates
3 debates
The U.S. should eliminate the electoral college and go to ranked choice voting
The United States should eliminate the Electoral College and adopt a nationwide popular vote with ranked choice voting because it would make elections more democratic, representative, and fair. Under the current Electoral College system, a candidate can lose the national popular vote but still become president. This has happened multiple times in U.S. history, including in 2000 and 2016. When the candidate preferred by most voters does not win, it undermines public trust and creates the perception that some votes matter more than others. The Electoral College also concentrates political power in a small number of swing states. Candidates spend most of their time and resources campaigning in a handful of competitive states while largely ignoring the rest of the country. As a result, voters in safe states often feel their voices do not matter. A nationwide popular vote would make every vote equal no matter where someone lives and would encourage candidates to campaign across the entire country. Adding ranked choice voting would improve the system even further. Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference instead of choosing only one. If no candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, the lowest candidate is eliminated and those votes are redistributed according to voters' next preferences. This process continues until a candidate earns a true majority. The result is a winner who has broader support from voters, not just a plurality. Ranked choice voting also reduces the spoiler effect, where similar candidates split votes and allow a less popular candidate to win. It encourages more positive campaigns because candidates benefit from being voters' second or third choice. Together, a nationwide popular vote and ranked choice voting would ensure that the president is chosen directly by the people and that the winner reflects the broadest possible support of the electorate.
Law enforcement officers should be required to show their faces in the line of duty
Requiring U.S. law enforcement officers to show their faces and clear identification while performing official duties strengthens democratic legitimacy, accountability, and public safety. First, transparency sustains public trust. Police authority rests on public consent. When officers conceal their faces or agency affiliation, it can undermine confidence that power is being exercised lawfully and professionally. Visible identification signals openness and reinforces the idea that officers answer to the communities they serve. Research and policy analysis from the Center for American Progress emphasizes that clear identification supports community trust and institutional legitimacy. Second, accountability requires identifiable actors. If misconduct occurs, the public must be able to determine who was involved. Anonymous enforcement makes complaints, investigations, and legal review far more difficult. Transparency reforms such as body-worn cameras gained bipartisan support precisely because they improve traceability and oversight. As discussed by Encyclopaedia Britannica in its overview of the police body camera debate, accountability mechanisms function best when officers can be clearly identified. Third, clarity protects public safety. When individuals cannot distinguish legitimate officers from impersonators, confusion and risk increase. Clear faces and visible identification reduce the likelihood of escalation and impersonation crimes. Concerns about officer safety are real, but they can be addressed through targeted protections—such as safeguarding personal data or allowing anonymity for undercover operations—without making anonymity the default. In a democratic system, visible authority paired with accountability helps protect both officers and the public.
NATO should establish a permanent Pacific presence to counter China
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must evolve beyond its European origins and establish a permanent military presence in the Pacific to effectively counter China's growing assertiveness. While NATO's Article 6 currently limits its geographic scope, the alliance has already demonstrated flexibility by operating in Afghanistan and conducting partnerships with Indo-Pacific nations like Australia and Japan. China's military modernization, particularly its anti-access/area-denial capabilities in the South China Sea, poses a direct threat to the rules-based international order that NATO was founded to protect. A permanent NATO Pacific Command, possibly headquartered in Guam or northern Australia, would provide the sustained presence necessary to deter Chinese aggression against Taiwan and maintain freedom of navigation through critical shipping lanes. This isn't about containing China, but rather maintaining strategic balance. Just as NATO's presence in Europe prevented Soviet overreach during the Cold War, a Pacific NATO presence would provide the credible deterrent necessary to preserve stability in the world's most economically vital region. The alliance's combined naval and air assets would far exceed what individual nations could deploy alone.