The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
KeithKroeger91
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points

A Debate On The Electoral College

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 9 votes the winner is...
ournamestoolong
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/22/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,205 times Debate No: 6008
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (9)

 

ournamestoolong

Con

This is a debate on the Electoral College. I am con and will allow my opponent to start.
The resolution is that the Electoral College should remain unchanged
KeithKroeger91

Pro

I am FOR the electoral colledge our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they came up with the electoral colledge and it should never change.

The way this nation has picked our presidents throughout history has never been by the popular vote. Our electoral colledge system was based on equality among the states. So that no ONE state could over rule another.

Now lets take a moment to think. Today in the United States which states do you think would decide the election every year? Well the answers are California, Florida, Texas, and of course New York. Year after year these four states would pick our presidents without the electoral colledge. It would be unfair because the little rural state's voice would not be heard and would go unnoticed. For example montana its a fairly small state and its people think differantly from people lets say in New York and right now with the electoral colledge in place they're voice is still heard because of the way the electoral points are dished out. But the moment you take away the colledge Montana becomes a "nothing state" and worthless while the people running for president only care about getting the votes in the four states i mentioned. So therefore the people in montana and many other small states across the nation are not properly heard. Now tell me, does that sound fair to you?
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Con

I am new to debate.org so I may make some mistakes.
First of all I refute that the founding fathers in creating the Electoral College, knew exactly what they were doing. They had no idea how the times would change so they added a means for ammends in the constitution.

Second I refute that because of the Electoral College no state may rule over another. This is not true because of overepresentation within the states. Wyoming is extremely overepresented with 1 Electoral Vote per abut 100000 while Texas has an Electoral vote per about 600000 people. So a citizen in Wyoming has Wyoming has 600% more power than a citizen in Texas. Is this fair?

Third I refute that small states would'nt be neglected in the popular system. This is because some votes in some states don't matter at all. If you are a democrat in a largely Republican state, then the state will ultimately go "red" and your vote will not affect the total. Also, if you support a third party candidate, your state will not help elet them and your vote will not count. So if we truly do believe in the statement " We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" Then we must eliminate the Electoral College to make our votes equal.

And last I say That 4 times in American history, a candidate has won without the popular vote. The peoples voices went unheard and we cannot make that mistake again. Every vote must count and everyvoice must be heard
KeithKroeger91

Pro

The electoral college is perfectly fair like I said in my last argument the vote on the presidency is NOT based on the majority vote the president is picked by the states as Individuals it would NOT be right for four states to ultimately decide the future for 46 other states.

" Wyoming is extremely overrepresented with 1 Electoral Vote per abut 100000 while Texas has an Electoral vote per about 600000 people. So a citizen in Wyoming has Wyoming has 600% more power than a citizen in Texas. Is this fair?"

So according to your argument above me you said Wyoming gets 1 electoral vote for every 100,000 people in the state but this is not true if it was Wyoming would have 5 electoral votes instead of only having 3. According to the U.S. census bureau Wyoming has a population of 500,000. Now tell me how without the electoral college would 500,000 people measure up against 23,000,000 people the logic doesn't make sense.

You also stated "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" well if you really believed in this logic you would support the electoral college so that no ONE state would not be heard. Because remember the four states I mentioned above would rule over all the rest due to their enormous populations.
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Con

I must say I was incorrect in stating that Wyoming was more overrepresented in the Electoral College by a margain of 6 to one, I meant 3 to 1. (Wyoming has .2% of the population with .6% of the Electoral Vote). There is still overrepresentation however. And to refute I will explain how 500,000 people can measure up to 23,000,000. Because the minimum amount of Electoral Votes is three (two senators + representatives) Wyoming, regardless of population will have three. Meanwhile, because the arbitrary number of 538 Electoral votes was created, fast growing states gain Electoral Votes, and that means populous states lose Electoral Votes. Also, the official census of the United States is taken every ten years. This is a problem because it does not compensate for a large rise or fall in population.

You also said that four states California, Florida, Texas, and New York would control the election process. However as it is they control about one fifth (this is a estimate) of the Electorate. If we switched to popular vote they would control about one fourth of the electorate, so other states would still matter.

In your closing you stated that "You also stated 'We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal' well if you really believed in this logic you would support the electoral college so that no ONE state would not be heard"

Well I refute that we should not be designated by our state. We should not be given power based on our political affiliations or the town or city or state we live in. We should be given power as a person. An individual. And that is why we must replace the Electoral College.

Thank you for the debate. I have enjoyed it.
KeithKroeger91

Pro

Well, I guess for my closing the last thing I'd like to say is that a candidate that strictly only tries to sway one part of the country lets say for example the very populace states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas would cause major social problems in the nation. Mark my words the rural areas will be completely ignored and if you can remember in history the last time the rural was ignored the Great Depression occurred. The Great Depression was a domino effect and the historians were able to link the domino effect by the woes of the rural that the Presidents made promises too, yet did not fulfill. If the Electoral college was eliminated for the national popular vote the rural would be COMPLETELY neglected because the candidates would never campaign in the smaller states knowing the real power exists in the populated areas.

Thanks for this debate was fun.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by NeoConCommunist 5 years ago
NeoConCommunist
Electoral college: from a political perspective, it's bad. Gore should have won in 2000, even with the Florida trouble, because the plurality was in his favor by around a million votes. When the founding fathers came up with it, the states were still extremely autonomous. We were a confederation of essentially independent nations. Now we are far more centralized, and our voting system should reflect that. Also, the founding fathers distrusted "mob rule", but now that everyone is educated to some degree, the electoral college (started as a committee of elected members who would choose the president) is obsolete.

However, I think the electoral college has one benefit: it makes the election season that much more interesting. Without it there would be many fewer "battleground states" and the election would not hinge upon a handful of "to close to call" states. Election night consequently is 200% more adrenaline-filled and more enjoyable. I would still like the electoral system to be replaced, but every election night my mind changes and I enjoy the modern electoral college for what it is: a huge public spectacle.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
PS: Both of you should consider providing a url to the information you are talking about during a debate. That way, you can have a chance at winning the reliable sources category.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
Or rather, simply type "RE: [insert summary of opponent's argument], hit the enter key and directly respond below.

PRO: Make sure to keep the debate going. Don't just avoid responding to your opponent's most recent rebuttal in the last round unless you can provide a logical reason for doing so. In addition, don't bring up new arguments. As explained earlier, it impedes the debate.

That said, good job to both of you. Later.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
CONDUCT: I gave condcut to CON. My reason for this is that PRO didn't attempt to respond to all of CON's arguments in the last round.

SPELLING/GRAMMAR: PRO. I'll explain in my "points to note" section. However, both contestants should work on their usage of commas.

CONVINCING ARGUMENTS: This goes to CON. PRO's "having the electoral college" promotes equality stance was good, but he never managed to overcome CON's counter to this. Essentially, CON flipped PRO's argumnet over by insisting describing the exact of how which electoral votes are determined in each state. Essentially, they are unequal. I'd comment more on this, but it would seem PRO didn't feel the need to given that he discontinued the rebuttal process in his final round and simply provided an entirely new premises in favor of the conclusion that rural areas would be completely ignored and that there would be a great depression to follow. First, I don't accept new material in the very last round of the debate. This does nothing more than impede the actual debate given that this material cannot possibly be debated over. Second, because no effort was made to continue the actual debate with CON, I have no choice but to conclude that his points were conceded to. Ergo, CON wins.

Reliable Sources: Both sides made brief mentions of sources, but no actual links provided, ergo, tie.

Points to Note:

CON: First, utilize your first round. I nealy voted you down on conduct because you (as the instigator) made your opponent provide the first argument. When you instigate a position, you should be the one who initially provides support for the aforementioned position. Second, don't say things such as "Second I refute that . . ." Keep in mind, refute is synoymous for disprove. You did not use the term in proper context for this debate. If you wish to use the term in the manner that you do, say "First, I WILL refute [insert opponent's argument].
Posted by pickpocket094 5 years ago
pickpocket094
oh i'm trying to
Posted by ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
This is my first debate so please leave criticism
Posted by pickpocket094 5 years ago
pickpocket094
sidenote* Both debaters acted as though when a state votes, it votes as a whole towards a single candidate. This is not true in a system based outside of an electoral college.
Posted by pickpocket094 5 years ago
pickpocket094
You do know that if the electoral college was abolished a popular vote would come into effect. The campaign would change from trying to win the big states to trying to win the majority of all states. In our system, the vote could come down to 6,000,000 to 6,000,001 and every single electoral vote would go towards the person with that one extra. Want to talk about a voice being killed, what about the voices of the 6,000,000 people in that state who's votes literally mean nothing.

I've been against this system ever since i knew what it was about. I feel that the pro side didn't really look into this enough based solely on the fact that he kept preaching for the little persons voice, whilst supporting a system that kills just that.
Posted by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
Before/After: Con
The premise of this debate was stated as "The electoral college should remain unchanged". Neither argued this point, rather the debaters argued whether it should be eliminated or remain.

Conduct: Tie
Both were equally courteous.

S&G: Tie
Both had terrible grammatical and spelling errors. Though Pro spelled college "colledge" throughout the debate, Con had too many mistakes to take the point.

Convincing arguments: Tie
Neither side presented a convincing argument. Both through around statistics without citing sources, making these statistics invalid in a logical debate. Con argued for equal representation, but a popular vote would not provide equal regional/state representation as Pro argued. Pro argued that the electoral college should remain unchanged, but the current system does not provide equal representation either. Pro also argued that four states would be concentrated on, but those four states already polarize the country.

Sources: Tie
No sources were cited by either debater.

No points awarded.
Posted by crackofdawn 5 years ago
crackofdawn
I found this debate very interesting and agree mostly with the con. With the present electoral college let's say 60% vote Bush and 40% vote Gore. Well guess what, those 40% don't even count now. I am glad someone debated this.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Renzzy 5 years ago
Renzzy
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jim92 5 years ago
Jim92
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Logical-Master
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Vote Placed by pickpocket094 5 years ago
pickpocket094
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 5 years ago
Mangani
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Harlan 5 years ago
Harlan
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 5 years ago
ournamestoolong
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 5 years ago
KeithKroeger91
ournamestoolongKeithKroeger91Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07