Proponents of reforming the Supreme Court and the Electoral College argue that these changes are necessary to modernize American democracy and ensure that government institutions remain responsive to the will of the people. Supporters maintain that the current Supreme Court has drifted into a period of judicial activism that prioritizes partisan outcomes over established legal precedents. By expanding the court, they argue, the government can dilute the influence of a single ideological bloc and restore public trust in the judiciary as a neutral arbiter of the law.
Regarding the Electoral College, advocates for reform emphasize the principle of one person, one vote. They contend that the current system effectively disenfranchises millions of voters in states that are considered reliably red or blue, as presidential candidates focus their resources and attention on a handful of swing states. A move toward a popular vote system would force candidates to campaign nationwide and ensure that the winner of the presidency has the broadest possible mandate from the American public.
Furthermore, supporters suggest that these reforms are not radical, but rather essential maintenance for a system that has become increasingly rigid. They point to the fact that the U.S. population and political culture have shifted dramatically since the 18th century, and that institutions designed for a different era must evolve to prevent gridlock and alienation. For these proponents, the risk of inaction is a slow erosion of faith in democratic processes, which they believe is a greater threat to national stability than the process of constitutional or legislative reform itself.
Ultimately, those backing these changes view them as a way to empower the electorate and ensure that the government functions as a true representative body. They argue that the political friction caused by these proposals is a small price to pay for a more equitable and functional democracy that serves all citizens equally.