The Dr. John Bedker Leadership Podcast

Playbook 4- The Electoral College

Does every person’s vote count? In the United States we stress that every person’s vote counts.  In get-out-the-vote (GOTV) rallies this is a central reason to vote. Make “your” voice heard. Your vote not only counts but counts the same as everyone’s. So, get out and vote.

This is the mantra in every election season.  It is certainly present in our current mid-term election cycle, but do the people really elect their representatives? The answer is yes, but not all the time.  Local and state elections are won by the person with the most votes. The person receiving the most votes is your popularly elected local or state representative.

The Presidential election is a very different matter.  At present, the Electoral College determines who is elected President of the United States, not necessarily who received the most votes. There is a total of 538 electors. They are comprised of the number of senators and representatives from each state plus three electors from the District of Columbia. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution delineates who can and cannot be an elector, sitting Congressmen for example cannot be electors.  Electors are generally chosen by state party committees before presidential elections.

Let’s look at the pros and cons of the Electoral College.

Pro Electoral College-

The framers felt that there may be voters that were uninformed, easily manipulated, or just following the herd; voters that may cast their vote for someone unqualified. And so, the framers concluded that it would be better to put this most consequential decision, the election of the President of the United States, in a few knowledgeable hands.

Others feared that smaller and less populated states would be adversely affected, receive little attention, and not have the influence in an election that they felt they deserved. The framers were concerned about underrepresentation for smaller states.

Con Electoral College-

“One person, one vote” does not ring true. Under the Electoral College a person could win the popular vote and lose the Presidential election.  This has happened in several elections, most recently in 2016.  Candidates would likely focus their time and resources on so called “swing states” because of electoral college voting protocols.  The Electoral College does not deliver a level playing field; in fact, it does quite the opposite.

Other negative factors, in our more modern world, include overrepresentation of smaller states, a seemingly undemocratic system. Smaller states, each with two Senators and at least one Representative give far greater representation to a small number of people compared with other states with far greater populations. There is an unbalancing of the vote across the country.  Simply, many feel, the Electoral College today undermines election legitimacy. It is perceived that the voice of the people is not equal between the various states.

With this backdrop, what does history tell us about the impact of the Electoral College on the outcome of Presidential elections? And, what does the data tell us about the support for changing or eliminating this arcane system?

The History-

In the 2000 Presidential election between Al Gore (D) and George Bush (R), the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in counties where there were historically statistically undervote numbers. The Bush campaign sued. In a 7-2 decision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to recount the votes in the statistically problematic counties. Bush then won the Florida Electoral College votes and the Presidency.  Al Gore won the popular vote by almost half a million votes.

In the 2016 Presidential election Donald Trump won 304 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227 votes.  Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.87 million votes.  The peoples voice did not prevail, again. The Electoral College did. Donald Trump became the fifth person to be elected President of the United States without winning the popular vote.

The voice of the people must prevail in a democracy. For the voice of 538 electors to prevail over the people flies in the face of a fundamental democratic requirement, free and fair elections. The Electoral College can circumvent the voice of “We the People.” As a consequence, the Electoral College raises a fundamental issue of election legitimacy.

The Data-

Pew Research data shows most Americans (63%) would like to see the President as the person that received the most votes nationally.  This data is skewed by Conservative Republicans (MAGA) that would like to retain the Electoral College system. Electoral College votes in smaller, heavily “red” predominately MAGA states add up for this population, and they do not want it to change.  More moderate Republicans across the United States favor abolishing the Electoral college by 61%.  Democrats, across the United States, strongly support abolishing the Electoral College (87%), according to Pew Research.

Here are two possible pathway solutions to this vexing problem.

Optimal Pathway- Constitutional Amendment

What can be done?  The optimal solution that we routinely mention in these playbooks for transformative leadership change is to amend the Constitution of the United States. While this seems an unlikely successful path, there is history to support this optimal solution, regarding the Electoral College. A significant affirmative vote, two-thirds in both the House and the Senate, and approval of at least 38 of the 50 states would be required to amend the U.S. Constitution.  As challenging and unlikely as this path sounds, in 1934 legislation fell just two votes short in the Senate of eliminating the Electoral College. In 1979 another vote in the Senate failed by three votes to eradicate the Electoral College. Over the past 250 years of our nation there have been over 700 attempts to correct or eliminate the Electoral College. So, there is energy and there has been action to advance the publics desire to ensure the publics vote counts and to ensure democracy prevails.  Gaming the current Electoral College system is not a solution to a looming genuine constitutional crisis. Transformative leadership change is necessary.

Alternative Pathway- National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

There is an interstate pact known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which was created to recognize the national popular vote in Presidential elections. The NPVIC commits electors to place their Electoral College votes for the candidate that won the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have signed on. This pact is short 74 votes for NPVIC to become effective. NPVIC will only become effective if enough states ratify to reach the Electoral College majority of 270 votes.  MAGA and other forces may seek to litigate the actions of NPVIC. Other state electors may choose to defect.

Perhaps the most glaring challenge comes from the scenario where a state vote chooses one candidate, and the national vote chooses another.  Under NPVIC that state would be required to vote for the candidate that won the national popular vote.

How to optimize the prospects for the popular vote to prevail in national Presidential elections-

There are several strategies that may be valuable.  The following lists a collective and grass roots approach. These several strategies together may be the leadership-based approach to carry the day and maintain a pro-democracy approach going forward.

This collective vision begins with publicly funded national and local campaigns, with funding for every state. Funding of down ballet races is critical.  Governors’ races would be key.  The Governor of a state sets the tone. They are the leader of their state.  They were elected by the majority of the people in their state.  It is the voice and leadership of a state governor that is at the core of this collective strategy. Hopefully, they also have voices of leadership in the state house and state senate of their respective states. This leadership chain is essential to effecting change.  The leadership chain continues to mayors, members of town councils, school boards, judgeships, county commissioners, and other local and municipal representatives to bring an aligned leadership vision to their respective roles. This state leadership and grass roots approach is the transformative leadership change essential to advance democracy, express the true will of the people, and bring legitimacy to every vote counting and every vote counting equally.

This playbook brings into specific focus two pathways to ensure the people elect their President.  Each is transformative, each is pro-democracy. Both are difficult. The time has come for transformative change. The people must prevail.

Playbook 3- Term Limits and Age Limits

As Fall approaches, change is in the air. Days are becoming shorter and temperatures are cooling. Leaves are turning and sweaters and sweatshirts are being pulled off the shelf in the closet.  Hurricanes have hit our coasts, and the administration of President Trump is proposing an oil deal with the Russian President Vladimir Putin, a live streamed firing squad execution of a convicted military officer, and replacement of President Zelensky as the leader of Ukraine because he is unwilling to cede his country’s sovereign land to its invader.

Less than a month from the mid-term elections in the United States, this is the octogenarian voice of the leader of the free world.  It seems a timely moment to discuss term limits and age limits for the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.  Not just for this moment in American history, but for transformative change.

Term Limits-

Term limits for the President of the United States are limited to two terms by the 22nd Amendment of the Constitution, ratified on February 27, 1951. There are no term limits for other members of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of government, including the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  16 states have, however, enacted laws imposing term limits on state legislators.

There is a myriad of factors that have changed since the framers wrote the Constitution.  We live in a very different world. Health care capabilities and life expectancy are both dramatically different than the time of the framers. The Courts today hold more power than the framers ever imagined. The United States is the only nation in the world with a high court with no term or age limits.  The three co-equal branches of government today are neither co- nor equal. So, from our human condition to the functional failures of our unequal centers of power, our current system was unthinkable to the framers of our Constitution.  These are but a few of the myriads of reasons why rethinking term limits and age limits is needed now.

Leadership is about doing the right thing.  What is the right thing regarding term limits?  I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.  We are experiencing what no limits has gotten us.  What would happen if there were term limits?  

I believe there would be both intended and unintended consequences.  On the unintended side, people with noble hearts may be limited in their years to serve.  Agendas may be left unfinished, relationships may not be allowed to continue to develop to serve for the betterment of Americans, expertise and experience may be cast aside.  Each of these unintended consequences may be real. So, why seek term limits?

Term limits and age limits are not panaceas, but they may be important structural components to a wide range of current problems. Problems unconceived by the framers. Term limits and age limits could contribute to a reduction of corruption, could bring new voices, new vision, new skills, to our everchanging and increasingly turbulent world. Term limits in and of themselves insure change.  Government is meant to represent the people.  Term limits bring into specific practice a check on representation.  Is my representative, my senator, my judge, my President, representing me, representing my values and interests, representing America? Term limits can contribute to addressing these critical issues.

So, here is a proposal.  Two four-year terms for the Office of President to remain as prescribed by the Constitution.  Two 6-year terms for U.S. Senator, for a total of 12 years of service. Six two-year terms for a U.S. Congressman, for a total of 12 years of service. One 12-year term for a U.S. Federal judge, including members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The people most likely to oppose this or similar proposals are congressmen, senators, and judges themselves and the donors, lobbyists, and interest groups that support them They want their person in office.  This is another compelling argument for transformative term limit change.

Some incredibly capable and well-intended public servants may unintendedly be adversely affected by term limits, but new, capable and well-intended public servants may have the opportunity to bring their fresh perspectives to the betterment of the American people.

Age Limits-

Getting older is not a disease.  Cognitive decline happens to us all.  Unfortunately, some more quickly than to others. There is not yet science to predict or inform us when an individual cognitive decline will begin and at what rate that decline will proceed.  To be sure, though, cognitive decline and aging are inextricably linked.

There is broad bipartisan support for age limits. 76% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans support age limits. Where is the current Congress?  

In the United States Senate from age 70-79 there are 27 Senators, and for 80 years of age and older there are 6 Senators.  That means a body of 100 Senators has 33 members 70 years of age or older.

In the United States House of Representatives from age 70-79 there are 71 Congressmen, and for 80 years of age and older there are 13 Congressmen. A body of 435 Congressmen have 84 that are age 70 or older.

Looking at the total number of members over age 70 there are 98 in the House and Senate combined and 19 age 80 and older combined. That equals 117 members of either the House or the Senate that are 70 years of age or older.

Beyond the real, but unpredictable, cognitive decline of everyone, there exists the reality that setting an age limit could mitigate the effects of cognitive decline. Age limits would further provide opportunities for younger motivated, capable, digitally aware aspirants to public office. Change can be good.

In the case of the U.S. Supreme Court there may be additional benefits. Staggering terms could provide the opportunity for each President to appoint justices.  It would also mitigate the strategic timing of a justice retiring to provide a politically aligned replacement.  In the world of leadership where the prime directive is to do the right thing, timing a justice for retirement for political reasons is certainly not the right thing.

So, I offer the following proposal.  All members of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government should be limited to age 70 to serve.  Excellent people may be adversely affected, but just as in the arguments for term limits, the benefits of age limits far outweigh the benefits of maintaining the status quo.

The transformative action of applying term limits and age limits would benefit the American people, be reflective of the overwhelming majority of Americans, and be a tangible example of Americans legislating to do the right thing.

Playbook-2- Corruption

Money and power are at the heart and soul of corruption in the United States government.  Money enables power, but it is power that drives corruption.  Corruption today is pervasive.  Playbook-2 will offer several ways to address corruption today in our legislative, judicial and executive branches of the U.S. government.

Leadership is about doing the right thing.  The key word being, doing.  What is needed are tangible actions against corruption.  We must go beyond punishing corruption. Accountability needs to meet or exceed the scale of the corruption.  The perpetrator(s) must be accountable in a real sense, a tangible and visible sense. Words are not enough.  We live in times very different than days gone by.  The guardrails that have been relied upon in the past, are no longer dependable. Guardrails are largely an anachronism.

The landmark cases, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission and the follow-on case SpeechNOW.org v Federal Election Commission are the two prime cases enabling the introduction of unlimited campaign finance contributions, the creation of Super Pac’s, and the introduction of “dark money” to political campaigns.  This money enables a few very wealthy individuals in society to wield undemocratic amounts of power. The voices of the collective (the people) are minimized when money in unlimited amounts is contributed by a few very wealthy people and entities. Additionally, numerous surveys in the U.S. suggest that the influence of big donors to political campaigns is central to corruption in government. These surveys document that between 70% to over 80% of survey respondents identified corruption in government to be a major problem in the United States.  The actions necessary to remove corruption are many.  One approach is to return to the public funding of elections.  This approach has both broad and deep public support.  Again, well over 70% by numerous surveys. 

So what actions are necessary to effectuate transformative change? Amending the U.S. Constitution - is the optimal approach - to return to the public funding of elections.  This amendment could limit campaign funding to public funding and eliminate private and corporate contributions; government contractors, labor unions and other non-human entities could also be eliminated from campaign funding; and lastly, dark money contributors must also be eliminated from contributing to political campaigns.  An amendment of this magnitude would be transformative.  

As a starting point, we need to be clear about how to Amend the Unites States Constitution.  Here goes: The first, and optimal approach.

Proposing an Amendment

An amendment must be proposed by one of two methods: 

Ratifying an Amendment

Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by one of two methods (chosen by Congress): 

As I stated above, amending the Constitution is the optimal means to address the core issue of corruption, however, this approach may not be achievable in the near term. The chasm between opposing political ideologies, polarization, an overarching lack of fortitude to do the right thing by both parties, and unfortunately, an ever-present need to display fealty to the President of the Unites States. Any one of these may be sufficient to derail an effort to amend the Constitution.

A Second Approach-

A Legislative Option to Mitigate Corruption

Should the 2026 mid-term elections bring about a change in the majority of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, then a series of legislative initiatives could be advanced into law.  If the Democrats win a majority in both the House and the Senate much could be accomplished without an amendment to the United States Constitution.  

Among these initiatives would include an overhaul of federal ethics laws to include all members and staff of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of government with permanent funding and enforcement mechanisms.   Included in these ethics’ laws would be the President of the United States and his staff and the Justices of the United States Supreme Court and their staff.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause would need to be codified in a clear and enforceable way.  Clarity in deeds, actions, funding and enforcement would need to be incorporated in a way beyond words.

The elimination of stock trading, private placement investments, venture capital investments, or other investment activity while a member of congress, member of the judiciary or member of the executive branch of government. This would include both the President and Justices of the Supreme Court. All investments, while a member of any branch of government must be held in a blind trust. The perception of corruption must be mitigated.  The blind trust must be verifiable and regularly audited and made available for public review.

The overseer of each of these initiatives must be independent, permanently and fully funded with real authority to enforce, act and require change and accountability.

Consistent with each of these transformative initiatives would be the empowerment of a free press and the encouragement of whistleblowers to speak up and speak out when wrongs occur.

In summary, Playbook-2 begins the transformative journey for governing and leading for a pro-democracy vision for the country.  Addressing and mitigating corruption is the necessary starting point.  Incremental change cannot be the answer.  To nibble at this agenda is not the call for transformative change.  In today’s world, leadership - doing the right thing - is the bold and courageous call for action. 

Sourcing:

Weiner, D. I., Zdanys, J., & Petry, E. (2026, January 20). Nine Solutions for Political Corruption, A new era of anticorruption reform is long overdue.

This playbook offers a transformative change in how we can and should govern and lead in the United States. Leadership is about doing the right thing. Simple to say, but often difficult to do. Dr. Bedker will delve into our political, economic, social, and military worlds and showcase how things are

The final episode. A summary of the 100 podcasts is offered. Leadership has been my life’s work and my life’s passion. It has been my honor to share with you my life as practitioner, scholar, and leader.

"We are drowning in information while starving for wisdom,” so said E. O. Wilson. Synthesising information is a critical skill for leaders today. Making sense and making meaning about not just data, but the myriad of nuanced factors that surround data is essential to leadership success. The connecting of dots in our world today. This episode describes the why and the how of synthesis for leaders today.

Two important axioms drive this episode. “You never have a second chance, to make a first impression," and “be mindful not only of what you say, but how you say it.” Through quotes and science, this episode seeks to highlight this critical leadership core competency: Communication.

Not addressing climate change may end our world. Not addressing proactively the potentials of another global pandemic may end our world.  Today we discuss the expiration of our Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The proliferation of strategies arms, particularly nuclear arms, could end life in our planet in minutes. Nowhere could leadership be more important. Today we discuss the failure of leaders to lead on this planet critical issue.

World leaders gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week. President Donald Trump of the United States and Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada both spoke. President Trump’s speech was full of misinformation, disinformation, and inaccuracy. Attacks were made on allied world leaders and praise and support was given to autocrats and dictators. The other was made by Prime Minister Carney. Prime Minister Carney’s presentation is a seminal leadership presentation. An exemplar.