The American Constitution is at the mercy of algorithms
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
Americans are united by the Constitution, which they swear to protect, and to live together under its umbrella. In the summer of 1787 AD, the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America faced the dilemma of electing or choosing the president, making huge intellectual and legal efforts to imagine the upheavals that the position of president would lead to. They developed many scenarios and many alternatives to ensure the separation of powers, and that one branch did not dominate another, and they worked hard to block the pretexts that could lead the nation into the hands of a tyrannical, corrupt, or chaotic executive apparatus. The obsession with ownership was dominating their discussions, as America had just been freed from the bondage of the British monarchy, and had pledged to itself to present a republican system that constituted a clear break with the monarchy, in its form and content. That precaution led them at the time to an electoral system different from the rest of the countries of the world, which was to choose the President of the United States through the Electoral College.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania proposed electing the president by direct popular vote, then they ruled that out for reasons, including that the states are independent countries, on a vast geographical area and isolated from each other, and the information circulating at the American national level is limited, and ignorance of politics and its activities is widespread among voters, especially in states that were famous for slavery. Opening the way for direct election will mean a large number of presidential candidates, in the absence of mass media that educates voters and presents to them the biography of the candidate and the extent of his competence and suitability for leadership. In addition, states with large populations will be able to decide, and thus small states will have no role in determining the identity of the president, which will prompt their parliaments not to ratify the constitution.
A new alternative was proposed, which is the selection of the president by Congress, given that Congress includes representatives of the American people from all states. However, the dilemma keeps repeating itself, which is the fear of separation of powers. Committee member Gouverneur Morris warned that lawmakers might install a figurehead president subject to their whims, placing the executive branch, including the head of state, under the guardianship of Congress. The third alternative was for state governors or legislatures to choose the president, but this alternative was rejected as narrow-minded and portended a fragmented executive authority more loyal to the states than to the American nation as a whole. The Electoral College emerged as a balanced alternative between voters and states, designed to elevate wise leaders insulated from the fluctuations of public mood. They considered it a compromise solution that satisfied the states, large and small, achieved justice, and placed the fate of the president in the hands of enlightened representatives of the people who were not members of Congress in both chambers. Each state appoints its electoral college from among its elites equal to the number of its representatives in Congress. The goal is to get rid of demagoguery, and to curb charismatic candidates, brilliant actors, and articulate orators, if they do not possess the elements of leadership, wisdom, and ability to make decisions in all circumstances. The writers of the Constitution believed at the time, and with the data available to them, that the electoral totals would guide the emotions of the masses. What if they could predict how mass communication, even current social media networks, would change the rules of the political game? They imagined everything that could deviate the presidency from its natural path, but they never imagined that a time would come when the candidate would be able to enter every home via the television screen, and address each voter individually, via a smartphone. All precautions were in vain when the data changed.
The 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates represented a turning point; Television viewers saw Kennedy’s attractive poise over Nixon’s sweaty pallor, while radio listeners favored Nixon. Over time, the presidency turned into a visual display, favoring actors over statesmen. The mass media amplified this shift, as 24-hour news cycles manipulated voters’ convictions, and catcalls and scandals turned into gunfights between candidates and their loyalists, reducing complex politics to trivial public drama. Presidents now have to adapt to an environment in which missteps spread like wildfire, and appearances overpower results, as evidenced by how media coverage shapes voters’ perceptions through selective framing, advertisements, polls, and statistical percentages, which has weakened the quality of leadership in favor of those who master the use of media and populism.
Social media represents the worst that those who hold the idea of electoral totals can imagine. It used division as a weapon, and algorithms prioritized anger, discontent, nationalism, ideology, and racism, creating highly polarized environments that distorted the landscape and supported intolerance and extremism. It undermined the participatory governance that the Framers valued, produced programmatic biases, and prioritized showy popularity over shared party efficacy, deepening divisions in a nation whose founders had hoped to unite. Will the American Constitution be the next stage of partisan dispute?
