Much like our divided country, each side of this debate strains to comprehend the perspective of the other, together reaching no consensus on the fate of the Electoral College. In what feels like a constitutional law and political science scrimmage, participants lob questions and spark exchanges. What follows is a short list of discussion themes:

Judith Best wonders how a movement currently pursuing a nationwide popular vote outside of a Constitutional amendment can accomplish its goal without usurping Constitutional process. Robert Bennett responds that advocates believe they are neither overturning the Constitutional system nor encroaching on the prerogatives of federal government. Alexander Belenky asks what benefits popular vote proponents think it will bring. Alexander Keyssar asks in return, “Why shouldn’t people … have the ultimate voice in deciding what their political institutions look like?”

Robert Hardaway worries about implementation of the direct national election. John Fortier notes possible problems among states over differing voting standards (e.g., polling hours, or mail-in ballots). Akhil Amar adds, “Who votes and who doesn’t? Is it fair if one state allows 16-year-olds and another 18-year-olds? Is it equal if one state lets you vote for three months and another lets you vote for three hours? These are real issues, but in the end don’t scare me away.”

Is a national popular vote doomed due to inertia and the preference of political parties for the Electoral College? Bennett imagines opposition might wither if a modest version of a nationwide vote emerged. Akhil Amar believes if both parties feel “bitten in the back” by the EC system, they’ll say “let’s move.” Vikram Amar says unlike other ideas for constitutional amendments (such as for a balanced budget or school prayer), a popular vote has “potential for traction,” since it involves improving democracy.

Best thinks proponents of popular election “have their priorities wrong and should go after the Senate first.” Vikram Amar agrees that the Senate is anachronistic, part of the original deal “to get the Constitution done” but Akhil Amar states there are “perfectly sound reasons for wanting to change the presidency and selection mechanism that do not require rethinking the Senate.”

Belenky wonders if it’s good for the country if we elect a president by a thin plurality who has lost the popular vote in every state. Keyssar retorts “that for any conceivable electoral system the rest of people here…can think of a disastrous counter example.” Best insists that “as thinkers, we must be careful to not confuse end and means: the goal of an election is to produce a president who can govern this nation.”

Concludes Akhil Amar, “Many arguments invoked against popular elections are actually red herrings, which might be sufficient to persuade people to stick with what we’ve got now.” Says Bennett, “I don’t think there’s any doubt, if we go to a national popular vote … there might be unexpected consequences …but the notion that it will be somehow fatal is an over-dramatization of a point.”

Audience members take the floor in this last of five sessions debating whether to retain or discard the Electoral College system. Through question, answer and general discussion, the panelists further elucidate their positions on the main conference topic.

The following is a short list of discussion areas raised by audience questions:

Panelists engage around how a national popular vote system would impact minority groups. Judith Best and Robert Hardaway believe that minorities in swing states have an advantage in our current system, and a change would mean losing that leverage. Robert Bennett, Paul Schumaker, and Akhil Amar dispute this.

John Fortier, Schumaker, Alan Natapoff, and Vikram and Akhil Amar discuss whether a national popular vote would have the effect of mobilizing voter organization and participation at a community level. Fortier doesn’t see a panacea in the popular election, while Schumaker sees very positive consequences. Akhil Amar believes there will be “more close elections in the future than in the past,” due to 24/7 polling made possible by new technologies. Natapoff declares that “simple national voting creates pernicious incentives to play off one group against another.”

An audience member comments on the “denigration of third parties” during the conference and wonders how a change in election systems might affect the emergence of viable, elect-able third party candidates. Alexander Keyssar notes that the U.S. is the only country in the world where no new political party has come to power in the 20th century. “It’s possible that’s because our two political parties are so magnificent…” he says. Other panelists point out the dangers of multiparty elections, and the possibility of elections being thrown into the House of Representatives. Some suggest adopting instant runoff elections. Akhil Amar cites a law of political science that “when you have one office up for grabs, you’re generally going to have two parties vying for it in long-term equilibrium.”

One audience member wonders what foreign nations might offer the U.S. in terms of election process. Natapoff claims that our current system is essentially parliamentary, and Akhil Amar retorts “our system is so far from parliamentary as to be staggering.” Keyssar adds that our Electoral College, while like a parliament, is not an ongoing body. Amar believes that while we have much to learn from other systems, they won’t be adopted at the federal level unless “they’re road-tested in the states and proved to be workable.”

If the U.S. generally produces only two viable candidates, and the Electoral College handles this kind of election well, why move to a popular vote? Alexander Belenky responds that with the EC, just 11 states can elect a president. “If in those states the turnout is low and the rest of the country’s turnout is high, it may be that a small percentage of the popular vote will elect the president.”

The panelists devote additional time to discussing each other’s suggestions for modifying the Electoral College and other changes to the voting system, and discuss in detail how runoff voting works.

“We’ve been spoiled as a nation,” says Bob Malone. For decades, energy was inexpensive and abundant, and most Americans took it for granted. Recently “we’ve seen the world change around us.” Successive presidential administrations have failed to free the nation of dependence on foreign oil, and to advance alternatives to fossil fuels. We must now, once and for all, shape a comprehensive national energy policy, Malone maintains.

With the dive in financial markets and general economic gloom, Malone worries that the public can’t focus clearly on energy. He reminds us that the fate of the U.S. economy is intricately bound up with energy costs, and that this year alone, “we’ll pay more than $400 billion for imported oil,” and that the U.S. has paid out $8 trillion for foreign oil since 1973. High energy costs today are choking the airline, trucking, and manufacturing industries, not to mention straining the public sector, as families spend much more to drive, and to heat, cool and light their homes.

While Malone’s BP is eagerly exploring new energy ventures, he notes that a grab-bag of well-meaning programs introduced by industry and state governments cannot produce the change required to transform our energy infrastructure. Malone advocates a deliberate, federally directed enterprise aimed at providing long-term energy security. Some steps he recommends: energy conservation, in the form of mass transportation, higher mileage cars and green buildings; exploration and recovery of offshore oil in areas currently off-limits; continued exploitation of coal (the U.S. has a 100-year supply, says Malone), on the assumption we’ll find some way to make it clean; and large-scale investment in wind, solar, and nuclear and next-generation biofuels.

To kickstart alternative energy, though, the U.S. needs a financial regulatory and physical infrastructure. For instance, BP owns and operates the largest North American solar panel facility, but can send what it produces only to Maryland and California, which provide subsidies. There’s no way industry can overcome technological hurdles and price constraints without government incentives in place. Pricing carbon appropriately will make energy conservation more attractive, and generate investment in renewables, he says. While the higher cost of carbon “will eventually find its way to the pump, monthly utility bills and to the grocery store, the revenue we’ll get from carbon taxes or sale of carbon credits … will be used to soften the impact on society from those higher prices, and we can use some of that money to reinvest in alternative forms of energy.”

“I’ve drunk kava in the South Pacific and rubbed noses with natives,” says William Fallon. “I’ve enjoyed tender baby camel as a delicacy. I’ve met presidents, kings, prime ministers and many ordinary folks. I’ve done a lot of things. That was yesterday. What matters is today and tomorrow.” Now, says Fallon, is the time for all Americans to get down to business addressing the key crises confronting them. And he does mean ordinary Americans, not just the next president.

As a naval man with 45 years of experience dealing with conflicts all over the world, Fallon figures that the major challenges facing the nation will be at minimum “daunting,” but they are not beyond our collective capability. There’s the financial crisis; nuclear and other threats from Iran, North Korea and wide-ranging terror organizations; the competition for resources and the issue of climate change; and the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these issues are global, and increasingly interconnected, notes Fallon, and addressing them will require “close cooperation with other nations.”

The problem is that the U.S. has lost much credibility internationally in recent years, says Fallon, and so our leaders will have to reestablish the trust and confidence the rest of the world once had in our country. While top politicians can begin a process of diplomacy and cooperative engagements with other nations, Fallon thinks it’s equally or more important for ordinary Americans “to get our domestic house in order.” He’s of the opinion that the individual behaviors of Americans “have contributed to a general malaise,” and only by addressing these on an individual basis will our nation be able “to reestablish its prestige and influence for the betterment of a very interdependent world.”

Fallon focuses on the U.S. education system, which apart from world class universities like MIT, “wallows in underperformance … releasing millions of alleged graduates who can neither read nor write, understand math beyond elementary levels, find any place on a map….” Add to this “mediocrity” the fact that Americans feed their “self-indulgence in personal material goods” while starving such critical infrastructure as bridges and roads, which enable daily activities. Our critics rightly view us as “increasingly self-centered and heedless of the interests of others,” notes Fallon. It’s time to set our priorities straight. The U.S. has the “human capital, traditional values and the immense resources to take on and fix any of these problems.” What remains is the “willingness to do the job. Let’s get going,” he concludes.