Bill Overview
Title: Conspiracy to Obstruct the Electoral Count Act
Description: This bill prohibits the President from interfering with the determination of electoral votes and establishes penalties for violations. Specifically, the bill prohibits the President from obstructing the certification of electoral votes by Congress or pressuring the Vice President during such certification to discount a state-certified slate of electors or count an alternate slate of electors; a federal, state, or local official to substitute an alternate slate of electors; a federal, state, or local official to find votes; or a federal, state, or local official to make false claims about a presidential election.
Sponsors: Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by the obstruction of the electoral process in the U.S.
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill is designed to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process, which is fundamental to the functioning of democracy.
- The bill directly impacts the role and actions of the sitting President and candidates in future presidential elections, as they would be restricted from engaging in acts that could undermine the election process.
- The Vice President, as the individual responsible for certifying electoral votes, will be directly impacted by the bill's restrictions on the President's ability to interfere with their duties.
- Elected officials at federal, state, and local levels, who may be pressured to act unethically in service of electoral manipulation, are also directly affected.
- The general voting population in the U.S. will be indirectly affected, as the integrity of their votes is protected by curtailing potential influence on electoral outcomes.
Reasoning
- The bill aims to protect the democratic electoral process by restricting potential abuses of presidential power. Although it directly influences a small cohort of elected officials, its indirect effects extend to the entire voting population.
- This policy is highly targeted at political figures and institutional processes. It does not directly alter everyday lives or economic conditions for most citizens but seeks to ensure electoral integrity.
- The policy's budget allows for extensive monitoring and enforcement measures, but it is primarily an institutional safeguard rather than a public service.
- Given the scope and target of the bill, its impact on individual wellbeing will vary widely based on personal engagement with politics and perception of electoral process integrity.
Simulated Interviews
State Election Official (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill will provide me with more protections in my role as an election official.
- It's comforting to know there's legislation to back us against undue pressure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hadn't thought about it much, but I suppose this makes it more secure to vote.
- Public trust in elections is important. This seems like a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Local Government Official (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps provide clear boundaries for electoral integrity.
- It could prevent situations where local officials are put in uncomfortable positions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 72 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring elections remain fair is critical at this point in my life.
- I might feel a bit more at ease with the integrity of future elections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Activist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an important step for ensuring fair elections, though it's only one part of necessary reforms.
- Such measures help us tackle larger systemic issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legislation like this is vital for preventing the erosion of electoral integrity.
- I'm relieved by any measures that protect against political abuses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm encouraged by the efforts to uphold the integrity of our electoral system.
- It's crucial that wrongdoing is clearly penalized to deter misconduct.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Journalist (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps secure the electoral process, though accountability measures are also needed.
- It's a step towards regaining public trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I generally trust the system but supportive of extra precautions against corruption.
- Stable elections mean stable policies which help my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Lawyer (New York City, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill aligns with longstanding legal standards around fair process.
- Ensuring fair play in our democracy is paramount—this helps legally back those ideals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $73000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32550000, High: $76120000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $35184000, High: $82240000)
Year 10: $69540000 (Low: $41924000, High: $99170000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $140000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal challenges or interpretations regarding the limits of Presidential powers and election interference.
- The effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms to deter violations of the act.
- Impacts on public confidence in the electoral process and overall political stability.