Video
The Electoral College is the system by which Americans elect their president every four years. When American voters go to the polls for a presidential election, they are actually voting for a slate of electors who have pledged to support a specific candidate. These electors cast their own votes, and the winner is elected to the presidency. Two hundred years ago, the Framers incorporated the Electoral College into the United States Constitution, and to this day it remains one of the most controversial aspects of that document. But despite numerous attempts to reform or even abolish it, the Electoral College remains the mechanism by which Americans choose their president every four years. So why is it still around? Alex Keyssar, Matthew W. Stirling, Jr. Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, explores this subject in his latest book, “Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College?”
The answer is not as straight forward as one might think, and in this video Professor Keyssar discusses the myriad reasons that we still follow with what he calls, “a process that does not conform to democratic principles the nation has publicly championed.”
Behind the Book is a collaboration between the Office of Communications and Public Affairs and Library and Knowledge Services at Harvard Kennedy School.
Commentary
In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has taken sweeping, aggressive action against federal employees, impacting hundreds of thousands of workers and sending ripple effects across the country. Still, unions have stood strong, with the AFL-CIO, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU, and others filing over a dozen lawsuits to protect workers’ rights.
Commentary
Despite these unprecedented investments in mobilizing voters, overall trust in electoral health, democratic institutions, voter satisfaction, and electoral engagement have significantly declined. What might we be missing? Bruce Schneier and Hillary Lehr explore ways to enhance the voter experience in elections.
Commentary
In this paper, Mary W. Graham, co-director of the Center’s Transparency Policy Project, explores the unintended information inequities that weaken the nation’s vital health and safety alerts. By examining three policies — wildfire alerts, drinking water reports, and auto safety recalls — she suggests common sources of inequality problems and steps policy makers are taking to remedy them.
Policy Brief
In this paper, Mary W. Graham, co-director of the Center’s Transparency Policy Project, examines how unintended information inequities undermine critical health and safety alerts. Focusing on three key policies — wildfire alerts, drinking water reports, and auto safety recalls — she identifies common roots of these disparities and highlights efforts by policymakers to address them.
Commentary
Despite these unprecedented investments in mobilizing voters, overall trust in electoral health, democratic institutions, voter satisfaction, and electoral engagement have significantly declined. What might we be missing? Bruce Schneier and Hillary Lehr explore ways to enhance the voter experience in elections.
Feature
In their latest article for The Conversation, Justin de Benedictis-Kessner and Christopher Warshaw explain that there’s no empirical evidence linking crime trends to leadership by either political party.