Advocates for the reforms proposed by Vice President Harris argue that the American political system must evolve to remain relevant in the 21st century. They contend that the current structure of the Supreme Court, which allows for decades of influence by a single individual, creates a democratic deficit. By establishing fixed term limits, the judiciary would be forced to align more closely with the changing demographics and values of the American public, preventing the court from becoming a static political entity.
Regarding the Electoral College, supporters of a national popular vote emphasize that every citizen's vote should carry equal weight regardless of their state of residence. They argue that the current system forces candidates to focus almost exclusively on a handful of swing states, effectively disenfranchising millions of voters in states considered safely red or blue. Moving to a popular vote would incentivize candidates to campaign nationwide and engage with a broader spectrum of the electorate.
Furthermore, proponents suggest that these reforms are essential for restoring public trust in government. When institutions are perceived as outdated or inherently biased toward specific outcomes, faith in the democratic process erodes. By modernizing these mechanisms, the government can demonstrate that it is capable of self-correction and committed to the core principle of representative democracy. This approach is viewed as a necessary step to ensure that the federal government reflects the will of the majority of the population.