The Instigator
Our_Boat_is_Right
Pro (for)
The Contender
Polaris_SSBM
Con (against)

A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Polaris_SSBM has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 370 times Debate No: 117882
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

The Electoral College is there so it prevents mob rule. America would be nothing without it.
Polaris_SSBM

Con

First of all I"d like to mention how my opponent has stated that the electoral college was made to protect from "mob rule". There is no fear of a mob because there is no mob to fear of. If anything, The electoral college makes rule by mob even more advantageous since you could get away with winning just 30 percent of the popular vote but still becoming president. If a mob of people were to vote for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Etc. , And voted in the right states, They could sway an election, Though in both this would be hard in practice with an electoral based system and even harder with a democratic based system.

Next, I"d like to mention how the electoral college has failed to make smaller states more valuable by making larger states more powerful and smaller ones far weaker. In the electoral college, Winning the state of Rhode Island would be no big deal, It"s just 4 electoral votes, But if I won California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and the other big electoral states, I would be eccentric. Those states are the states needed to win the electoral college, Plus a few more. If more than 70% of the nation could vote against you, Along with more than half of the states of the US vote against you, And you can still win, There is a huge issue that would be troubling to address.

And finally, Another issue of the electoral college is that there is the extremely problematic Gerrymandering, The process of drawing districts by spreading out your opponents numbers thin to prevent them from having an impact, Going back to the previous issue stated. This move is very problematic as it prevents a fair and honest election, And makes elections a partisan business, Defeating the purpose of electing officials by the people, And instead making the people in power who draft districts the people who decide elections. This process is actually worse than one with mob rule, As corruption and greed can get in the way of something that should be a fair and honest practice.

Using a democratic process would solve all issues stated above and would not make the mob a threat (If anything, The electoral college could actually boost mobs if they are in the right spots at the right time). Fair and honest elections are the way to go, As that is a crucial part of true Republicanism, Where the people elect politicians to represent them. The electoral college is a broken and unfair system that needs to be removed. The longer it stays, The more un-democratic and un-republican practices continue to harm the United States.
Debate Round No. 1
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

Mob rule in a popular vote would be way more common than an electoral college, Because people don't have to be at a certain location. It is meant to hear minority voices. If democrats, For instance, Win the election just because they got more votes, Then more democrats will come to the country. This could overthrow the constitutional republic in place. If the majority gets a dub, Then minority voices are not heard.

"Next, I"d like to mention how the electoral college has failed to make smaller states more valuable by making larger states more powerful and smaller ones far weaker. "
Well, Of course. If a state had a population of 500, 000 and another state had a pop. Of 3 million, The higher population should be represented by more votes. This system would be unfair because it is actually making the more populated places more equivalent to the smaller populated ones. Actually, The some of the smaller ones are more powerful than bigger ones. For example, Wyoming has 3 electors, Or 1 for every 135k people. California has 55 electors, Or one for every 411k people. This is therefore making Wyoming more powerful than California, But the difference between delegate votes is so minute anyway.

For your final paragraph, I am kinda confused. What do you mean about drawing districts and spreading opponents numbers? Can you please explain this in a more simplistic way? Thanks.
Polaris_SSBM

Con

1. Mob vote would less extreme in a Democratic vote since everyone's vote is equal, One for one. Like I said, If people are in a certain area, Then it would be easy to win the electoral college, And in a way mob vote in the electoral college has already happened. Just look at the Blue Wall and Red Wall respectively, States apart of those walls will always firmly vote Democratic or Republican and rarely flip. While 2016 did see key flips that costed the Democrats the election, Those states are still considered Democratic Leaning.

2. You have yet to prove how the electoral college makes smaller states more equivalent to larger ones, All the electoral college does is make votes from small states useless. If you took California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, And New Jersey by just a margin of 1 vote, And everyone else in the states voted against you 100% along with DC, You would win with just 23% of the vote. Seems like the other states are pretty useless if you have positive polls in those states. Not to mention the argument that states that have fewer people for electoral votes is bogus, Please do explain why 4 electoral votes is more powerful than 55? Which one will bring me closer to 270, The smallest state or largest state in the union?

3. Sure, I'll explain more about Gerrymandering. When drafting districts, Sometimes people with their own intentions make them so that as many as their opponent's supporters are in in district but at little as possible to prevent a flip. This is the largest issue that can't be addressed by the Electoral College.
Debate Round No. 2
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

1. There are some states that usually go one way, For ex. Cali or TX, True. But the majority of states can go either way, And there are swing states. Mob vote would be easier in a democratic system because the simple majority gets the win, But in a electoral vote it would only apply to a minute number of electors.

2. It does not make them equivalent in the amount of electors. The electors are based on population size. If Wyoming has one elector for 110k, But cali has one for every 410k, Wyoming votes has more based on population size. If you want a state w/ 580k people have as many electors as a state with 40 MILLION people, I don't know what to say. Population matters.

3. I don't know what you are talking about. What do you mean by drafting districts? Districts just report their votes, It is a popular vote by state. It would also have little impact on elections, In the 2016 election, Trump won by a good margin.
Polaris_SSBM

Con

1. "Some" is an extreme understatement. The Midwest has been a solid Republican stronghold for years now, And New England and the West Coast have been solid Democratic strongholds. Obviously the Electoral college has failed to prevent mob rule from taking over.

2. Your missing the point, The ratios do not matter. Like I said, If you won Wyoming you would not care, It hardly matters. If you won California you would be eccentric. Sure, The ratios of people per electoral vote is lower for smaller states, But haven't you considered the fact that if their population blew up out of no where their electoral vote to population ratio would go up? Even it did matter, All you are doing is digging yourself a hole. That just shows that a small majority can decide an election on the flip side. The ratios of people to votes also allow for the theft of Electoral votes from larger states that should receive them.

Now my 3rd argument was actually invalid, So I apologize for that (But it is possible to redraft states so that they can be more democratic or republican, But that is just flat out unlikely), But I also explained why my opponent's counter argument to my 2nd argument was invalid, So we'd only have 1 thing to argue that he has as of now not addressed. So why not add 9 addition arguments eh?

New Arguments

1. The Electoral college is a winner take all system, Which poorly represents what the people in the state want. If you are just 1 vote over the 50% mark, You win the entirety of the state's Electoral Votes.
2. Smaller states not only don't matter in the electoral college, But it also makes them frequently ignored in presidential runs since their votes matter so little.
3. Adding on to that, The Electoral college also makes room for swing states, Which get even more coverage compared to even the smaller states that still get visits, And makes them the most important because they are large and could go either way.
4. Adding even more on to that, Swing states become an issue. If a few million people at most could decide an election for over 300 million people, There is a huge issue that needs to be addressed.
5. And still adding more, You have to make your policies satisfactory for states, Not people. If I wanted to have a paper tax, But Florida didn't like that, I'd be screwed even if I had supporters in other states that are smaller.
5. The Electoral College allows for faithless Electors, Which is inherently wrong and shouldn't be a thing.
6. When a tie happens, The new congress picks the president. Tell me that's fair.
7. Adding more on that, If a state has a perfect split between the representatives of a state, Most likely that state would be deadlocked, And it would not count. That would be just as bad as not having your votes counted at all.
8. Third parties have no shot at the electoral college. With no Electoral college, Their supporters are not longer dependent on states but just voting for them.
9. Adding more on that, The Electoral College makes spoilers more of an issue. Look at the guy from Utah in 2016 for example. Sure, Hillary really had no shot winning the state, But he took potential votes from Hillary.
Debate Round No. 3
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

OK, Wow, That is a lot of new arguments ;)
I won't rebuttal to each one of your points, But I will try to make rebuttals of which stand out in your arguments, To keep the arguments shorter.

1. Of course it is winner take all. So is a popular vote. This is so minority voices are heard.

4. Swing states can change. And the reason is because many states that have a lot of votes have a majority, Like Texas or California. The reason state popular votes are in place is so minority voices can be heard. With a popular vote, A country can become more and more popular to one party, Eventually so that the other party is drowned out election after election, Causing no minority voices be heard, Or possibly causing an abuse of power.

5b. Can you explain more about "faithless electors"? I am lost.

6. Ties are very rare. If there is, Who else would decide the election if the American people are so evenly divided?

8. Well duh. Third parties never win. They hardly get any votes.

9. Independents (usually the third party) steal votes from both candidates. It isn't one way or the other normally.
Polaris_SSBM

Con

1. At least the votes of every person is accounted for versus in the electoral college were 100% of the electoral vote goes to the winner despite winning by 1 vote. The closest we have had to this happening as far as I can remember was in the election of 2000. If the oversees ballots were not accounted for in Florida (They were late but were required to be accounted for), Al Gore would had won with just 60 Votes and take all of it's Electoral Votes.

4. Swing states can change out of no where is the reason why they are so important and make smaller states become worthless not to mention become dangerous. These states are the states that you have to get in order to win the White House with confidence. It's hard to win without them as they are the largest states by electoral count.

5. Faithless electors are electors that vote for someone who wasn't the person that won the state's votes. If Al Gore had just 4 faithless electors beside him for example, He would had won the presidency. This is a huge issue that should be addressed, A states electoral votes should still go to the winner.

6. Ties may be rare, But they are still a possibility. In elections, Extremely close votes are bad enough as they make the winner give up or compromise policies that they were hard-line on, And in a Democratic Vote and the Electoral college this is a possibility. But what differs Democratic vote from the electoral college is that ties are near impossible. You'd have to be really unlucky to get an exact tie. In the Electoral college this is a possibility that may have yet to have taken place but is still fathomable. And like I said, The vote gets tossed to the house where states with equal representatives are screwed if 1 person doesn't cross the line and their votes are nullified.

8. Third Parties would win more if the Electoral college was removed, Just look at the United Kingdom for Example. It's not just The Conservatives and Labours (The Republican and Democratic Parties of the UK) in their House of Commons (The House of Representatives In The UK) but also the Liberal Democrats (Or Liberal Dems), Sinn F"in, Democratic Unionist (Despite the name they are actually extremely right wing), Plaid Cymru, Scottish National Party, Etc. Here in the US its Republicans, Democrats, And 2 Independents, Both of which I can name, Angus King and Bernie Sanders. Now tell me that isn't an issue.

9. Unless the candidate is extremely moderate, Usually votes are only taken by one side. That random dude from Utah was more moderate compared to Trump and Hillary, But still a conservative. This stole the more conservative vote from Hillary by a large margin as they could vote for someone who found Trump too bitter to swallow but at least wasn't as bad as Hillary.
Debate Round No. 4
Our_Boat_is_Right

Pro

1. Al Gore lost by 537 votes after an intense recount process. Bush had a gain of 5 electoral votes by the end of the election. If Gore had won just ONE small state, He would have won the election. Small population and states do matter. What the electoral college does is makes minorities more powerful than a large group overpowering you. Popular vote would make minorities(i. E. Farmers in Wyoming) an equal vote to larger groups voting(like democrats for ex. ). What the electoral college does is makes smaller states and minorities more powerful by a) making electors based on population size, Which I already explained that Wyoming has more electors based on population than California, A swarm for liberals(protecting the minorities in Wyoming), And b) having 2 senators, Which make two electors regardless of population, Therefore making smaller populations equal to larger ones in that sense.

4. Yes, Swing states change which is a good thing. You have to win small states, As well. Swing states are important because they can go either way, And have more electors because the population size is bigger. If Hillary had won four small states that ranged in electors from 7-10, She would have won the election.

5. In the 2016 election, There were 7 faithless electors. 5 were caught leaving only 2 electors, Which would not have changed the outcome of the election. I agree that it is a problem, And it should be addressed. I assume with all the technology today it could easily be prevented, But I guess it hasn't yet.

6. Congress would decide a tie, One vote per state, To break a tie. The states are almost even, Slightly to the right if republicans controlled a few of the "either way" states. The problem with a democratic vote in a tiebreaker is that there could be many fake votes and uncounted votes. Many republicans believe Trump would have won the popular vote since they believe many votes were skewed for Hillary.

8. True Third parties never win in America, Everyone votes either left or right. Bernie Sanders ran for the democrats, Didn't e? He is a socialist.

America has been a constitutional-republic by design. If we were to become a democracy, It could go one way every time eventually to the point where one party controls the nation, Leading to a possible abuse of power and not a fair system to protect other voices and minorities voices. How would you like it if it only took majority vote to pass crucial decisions and legislation? Then the leading party could vote for their political purposes and it would not be good.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Our_Boat_is_Right 1 week ago
Our_Boat_is_Right
Thanks. Can you rebuttal to these?
"What the electoral college does is makes minorities more powerful than a large group overpowering you. Popular vote would make minorities(i. E. Farmers in Wyoming) an equal vote to larger groups voting(like democrats for ex. ). What the electoral college does is makes smaller states and minorities more powerful by a) making electors based on population size, Which I already explained that Wyoming has more electors based on population than California, A swarm for liberals(protecting the minorities in Wyoming), And b) having 2 senators, Which make two electors regardless of population, Therefore making smaller populations equal to larger ones in that sense. "
and. .

"America has been a constitutional-republic by design. If we were to become a democracy, It could go one way every time eventually to the point where one party controls the nation, Leading to a possible abuse of power and not a fair system to protect other voices and minorities voices. How would you like it if it only took majority vote to pass crucial decisions and legislation? Then the leading party could vote for their political purposes and it would not be good. "

DDO is screwed up half of the time. I don't blame you, But now unfortunately because of DDO nobody can vote on this debate smh ;)
Posted by Polaris_SSBM 2 weeks ago
Polaris_SSBM
My apologies, The damn website didn't take my final argument. . . Here's what it was. . .

Winning a small state would had helped, But by election day that wouldn"t had been possible unless Gore made some quick, Last minute trips to smaller states. And let's remember here, Most small states vote Republican, Gore would have to fight tooth and nail to win those states. The overseas ballots were a variable possible until December 8th where they had to be counted, Way past the election. If Gore would had fought this and won, He would had won Florida by an extremely slim margin had the recount been continued after the SCOTUS case, Around 60-171 votes like I said.

4. No, Swing states are not a good thing. They force politicians to appeal to states, Not people, Their unpredictability can make elections centered around them, They cause politicians to ignore smaller states, And being some of the largest states in the Union they make the biggest impact out of all states, Even more than larger ones like New York, California and Texas due to their swing state status. This is extremely bad. When politicians are more concerned about states rather than people, There is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. I would make an argument about safe states here, But my opponent wouldn"t be able to rebuttal it, So for the sake of fairness I shall not state it.

5. I think there isn"t much to state here. We both agree on the issue of faithless electors. But I want to add, Of course in 2016 faithless electors would fail to make an impact. In 2000 however, They certainly would had shifted the election.

6. At this point the election is not even an election, Just voted officials who are picking the president because they can"t bother to remove the Electoral College and swap for a Democratic one. This shows how undemocratic the Electoral College can be, Where not even the system itself can go smoothly.
Posted by Polaris_SSBM 4 weeks ago
Polaris_SSBM
Round one, My bad.
Posted by Polaris_SSBM 4 weeks ago
Polaris_SSBM
On round two some corruption of my text happened, I assume since it's because I used google docs. My bad, my original writting piece had none of those errors in my text. If you would like a picture for proof, please do ask.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.