Establishing a three-member Executive Committee would require a fundamental restructuring of the current election system. Presidential elections are already lengthy, inefficient, and costly, requiring extensive coordination among federal, state, county, and local governments, along with substantial staffing and funding at every level.

For many candidates, the election cycle extends well beyond a year, making campaigns prohibitively expensive and effectively inaccessible to anyone without significant financial backing. The cost of modern presidential campaigns illustrates this clearly. In 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris spent approximately $2 billion on a campaign she ultimately lost, while President Trump spent roughly $1.2 billion. These figures demonstrate that financial resources have become a primary indicator of electoral viability, often outweighing the quality of ideas or leadership skills, and that this represents a significant waste of resources that could be spent more productively elsewhere.

Under the current system, electoral success largely depends on factors unrelated to merit, including approval from major party committees that act as gatekeepers to funding, ballot access, and institutional support. This system prioritizes loyalty and donor interests over competence. Additional barriers include inconsistent state-by-state ballot requirements and reliance on media coverage that is uneven and vulnerable to corporate influence or foreign interference. Another example would be the political practice of gerrymandering, where district boundaries are manipulated to favor a party, ultimately influencing electoral votes rather than relying on voter preference. Because our current system lacks consistent, uniform standards, it invites chaos throughout our election process.

Historically, irregularities have led to five presidential elections with disputed outcomes due to election administration. In 1876, across multiple states, Republican-controlled canvassing boards threw out thousands of legitimate Democrat votes, and simultaneously, Democrats used voter intimidation tactics against Black voters, ultimately suppressing voter turnout. In 1888, Republicans paid voters in swing precincts in Indiana. In 1960, the Texas and Illinois elections led to questionable turnout and voter fraud, including recorded cases of deceased voters, precincts with vote totals exceeding the number of registered voters, and inconsistent increases in voter turnout. In 2000, due to ballot-casting and tabulation errors and inconsistent county recount standards, Florida’s election resulted in thousands of ballots being rejected. In 2020, dozens of court cases, audits, and recounts were conducted because of alleged voter irregularities across five states. These are five historical examples where presidential elections were questioned because of irregularities. Meaning that in roughly 8.5% (5 out of 59) of all presidential elections, the outcomes were questioned because of the process. This should alarm citizens and be recognized as an issue Congress should address. Allowing states to conduct their own presidential elections independently not only increases the risk of error but also raises questions about whether we are a cohesive Union.

Beyond the issues that state-organized presidential elections create, the Electoral College also casts doubt on our electoral process. The Electoral College was created in 1787 as a compromise between having Congress choose the president and electing the president by direct popular vote. The founders worried that voters in a large, rural nation would lack reliable information about national candidates. Adopting this practice would preserve the executive branch's independence and protect the influence of smaller and slaveholding states. This system, in which citizens would vote for electors, who would use independent judgment to select the president, would theoretically serve as a buffer between public opinion and executive power. In practice, however, political parties quickly formed and influenced electors to pledge their support to candidates. Eventually, most states adopted winner-take-all electoral practices to increase their influence. As a result, the Electoral College no longer functions as an independent body, but instead operates as a state-weighted vote-counting system that amplifies the role of swing states, and typically produces predictable election outcomes. To date, of the fifty-nine presidential elections held, five have resulted in elections where the Electoral College count did not reflect the national popular vote. Given that the national population has increased drastically, the development of various modes of sharing information across the country has occurred, and political parties have commandeered the Electoral College's intended purpose, it is time we consider abolishing this practice.

There have been seven elections with questionable outcomes, stemming from either problematic state election practices, Electoral College results that conflict with the national popular vote, or both. If these situations were viewed differently, they would likely provoke legitimate outrage and concern. For example, how would you feel if 12% of the time you got into a vehicle it wouldn’t start, or if 1 in 10 flights you took ended in a crash? Wouldn’t you question the safety and reliability of these situations? Wouldn’t it make you wonder, “Why is this still happening?”

Any effort to create a more democratic Executive Branch, such as establishing a three-member Executive Committee, must begin by addressing structural flaws in leadership selection. If the highest office in the United States is to reflect the collective voice of the people, removing variables that press their thumb on the electoral scale will be important to the future success of a new election system. A system in which each state applies different rules, procedures, and technologies to federal elections has proven to invite confusion and error. 

During the drafting of the United States Constitution, the framers considered allowing Congress to select the president. This approach was seen as a way to ensure that the Executive Branch would be led by an informed and capable individual. Ultimately, however, they rejected it out of concern that the President might become overly dependent on Congress, undermining the separation of powers and limiting executive independence. While this decision was rational, the independence granted to the Executive Branch has revealed its own vulnerabilities. In particular, individuals with little or no legislative experience, but significant national popularity, can find their way to the Oval Office. This outcome reflects another concern the framers sought to avoid, the risk of unqualified leadership emerging through mob rule rather than demonstrated governing ability.

Eliminating national presidential elections and instead entrusting the Senate with selecting the Executive Committee could reduce external influence and strengthen confidence in our government and our Executive Branch selection process. This approach would also place greater importance on senatorial elections, encouraging states to reevaluate their own electoral practices to ensure they support, rather than hinder, the success of qualified candidates. By placing greater weight on senatorial outcomes, states may be more inclined to choose candidates capable of succeeding on a national stage, thereby incentivizing individuals to develop the skills and experience necessary to serve on the Executive Committee.

By adopting a process where the Senate elects the three-member Executive Committee, it would eliminate the need for national campaigns and debates, as well as render the Electoral College obsolete. This change could also reduce the societal division often intensified during national elections. As all forms of media thrive off of the wedge topics elections bring to the forefront, this new process may encourage our Executive and Legislative Branches to address these issues with new legislation as opposed to leaving these topics unresolved, typically to be used as future political fodder for the next election cycle. Historically, these divisive topics have been unproductively debated for decades. Debating and filibustering may become practices of the past as they have proven to be effective methods for political sabotage. Our future may rely less on debate and more on meaningful conversation with a productive outcome.

A likely point of contention in this proposal is the departure from direct public voting in presidential elections. Since the first election in 1789, this practice has carried deep historical significance, and moving away from it may feel like a loss of a fundamental democratic right. In reality, we will give up one of our opportunities to practice this right and privilege, but in exchange we will remove the societal turmoil that accompanies the presidential election cycle. Reluctantly, this should be recognized as a worthy tradeoff. In return, we should reimagine what Election Day could be and what it could mean to the United States. Rather than centering on partisan competition, it could become a national day of civic reflection and unity marked by the Senate’s selection of the Executive Committee. It could be a day where we honor our country’s history, events and people who have helped shape our country to what it is, reminding us of the beauty of the landscape and the diverse cultures that make this country unique, but also remind us of our shortcomings and how we must collectively do what we can to avoid history repeating itself. Election Day should be a day of celebration, a day of remembrance, as significant as Independence Day.

 With the implementation of a senatorial Executive Committee election, clearly defined processes and qualifications are essential to ensure a transparent and decisive outcome. In order to produce three members, ranked-choice voting should be considered the method of voting to come to this conclusion. With ranked-choice voting, Senators would rank candidates by preference. When the votes are counted, if a candidate lacks sufficient support, they are removed from consideration, and the ballots are transferred to the next preference. This process continues until the top three candidates remain and are declared elected. The advantage of this method is straightforward, it rewards candidates who have proven to their colleagues that they are worthy of the responsibility that comes with the Executive Committee. Requiring two terms of prior service in the United States Senate ensures experience in lawmaking and national governance, while also reducing the candidate pool. To further refine the process, it may be a worthwhile consideration to have a primary election based on a presentation to the Senate describing visions for the country’s future to be used to narrow the candidate pool to ten candidates. At present, forty-five Senators meet the two-term requirement, making such a reduction both practical and necessary. On Election Day, the remaining candidates could deliver final presentations to their colleagues, followed by a ranked-choice vote. Broadcasting this process would enhance transparency and provide the public with greater insight into how Executive Committee members are selected. As a final consideration, placing the Executive Committee vote under the supervision of an organization like the Federal Election Commission, which would require expanding its responsibilities, or creating a new federal entity, would provide clarity and accountability. Additionally, having an independent body, like the Federal Election Commission, maintain secret ballots may be advisable to protect participants from potential retaliation or sabotage. 

The object of these reforms is not novelty, but to add an additional layer of separation of powers. Eliminating public presidential elections would reduce the political tension and societal division that our current lengthy, inconsistent process creates. Giving the Senate the power to select the Executive Branch ensures that our leaders are vetted by the system it represents and by the people who have working experience with these individuals. Together, these measures would strengthen public confidence, reduce incentives for manipulation, and reinvigorate our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said “This is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.” Let us look forward to a republic that best represents the many and not the few.