The Instigator
neveragain
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
cyman
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
cyman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,514 times Debate No: 19612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

neveragain

Pro

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. My Partner and I are on the pro side. Rep. William Delahunt said "The collision between the electoral vote and the popular vote is no longer just a historical curiosity. It's time to abolish the Electoral College and to count the votes of all Americans in presidential elections... This is about far more than any one candidate or the outcome of a particular election. At stake is public confidence in our electoral system." Our points are
1. Electoral College goes against the one-person one-vote idea
2. Direct popular vote better represents the people.
3. The Electoral College is subject to the ideas of the few, rather than the public as a whole
My first point is that the Electoral College goes against the one person one vote idea. The American Institute for Public party policy research found that one vote in Wyoming is worth four times as much as a single vote in California. In representing the people, we ought to represent all of them equally, one-person one-vote is the only right way to do this, which is why we need to favor direct popular vote over the Electoral College.
My second point is that direct popular better represents the people. The people prefer direct popular vote to the Electoral College. Polls were conducted on each state that asked American voters whether they would prefer direct popular vote for presidential elections. In every single one of these state polls the majority of people wanted a direct popular vote in the presidential elections. Many of the states voted over 70% for direct popular vote, and states like Oklahoma voted up to 81%. Ironically, the smallest state that would be supposedly "counted out" in the direct popular vote, Wyoming voted for popular vote, 69% of the Wyoming citizens taking this poll favored popular vote. Another Gallup poll said that 64% of the nation wants a popular vote for presidential elections. It is obvious that the people want a direct popular vote for presidential elections and since our government is a government of the people, we need to give the people what we want; it is time to switch to direct popular vote.
My third point is that The Electoral College is subject to the ideas of the few, rather than the public as a whole. The Electoral votes are taken not by the people, but by a set number of electors. The people vote for their candidate to essentially give the elector the desired candidate of the state. However, the problem that lies is that the electors can decide to go against popular opinion in favor of his candidate. These are called "faithless electors" as they can rule faithlessly against the people. Robert Bennett said that "faithless electors" control too much power, and can randomly and dramatically change the outcomes of an election at an impulse. Professor William G. Ross of Stamford University wrote "in past elections, so-called "faithless electors" cast innocently odd votes that provided an old-fashioned reminder of one of the old curiosities of the presidential selection process". In other words, faithless electors have defected against the will of the people to serve their own interests.
With this all the people could decide. The candidates would still come here to get votes, as we will still be important. This is why I urge you to vote for the pro side.
cyman

Con

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. My partner and I are on the con side. Our points are:
1. The Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections.
2.there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts
3.Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways
4.The Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority.
My first point is the Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections. According to Kristina Dell, "with a direct popular vote...the selection of the president would often be the biggest, most populous states with little attention paid to smaller ones." Without the Electoral College the voices of small states would be drowned out by the larger ones. Bob Nutting of the Maine House Republicans says, "In the election of 2008, because all votes in the Electoral College are important, Maine saw candidates and their surrogates. If the criteria for winning were the popular vote, they would have camped out in California, Texas, New York, Florida and other populous states." The Electoral College is a necessity in order to give small states the right to have a voice in presidential elections.
My second point is that there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts. As Professor Judith Best argues, "an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil." This is the function now played by the Electoral College. To its defenders, it does so in two ways. One, it saves the nation "from the effects of a vague outcome." In this way, it confers the necessary legitimacy even in the face of close elections. And two, it also "protects the nation from the crisis of a disputed election." In a direct popular vote, during a close election, candidates will be too tempted to challenge every result. Whereas before if you carry a state by 10% there is no reason to challenge under the Electoral College, now a nationwide deadlock will ensure each state undergoes a recount. The judiciary committee once again explains, if one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. And in a little while, the whole electorate is involved.
My third point is that direct popular vote is flawed in many ways. Proponents of a direct popular vote too often over simplify the question at hand. They fail to realize that, like any other system, direct popular vote will be vulnerable to numerous problems. One such problem is the increased threat of vote fraud. The Electoral College is a series of self-sealing containers, so that each state does not influence the outcome of another. If fraud occurs, it is isolated. In a direct election, however, each vote is of premium importance to the national decision. As such, agents within the election will have a far greater decision to influence votes. Consider an election that stays in an almost complete deadlock throughout the day. As word travels, the urgency of West Coast votes becomes so great that the temptation to commit fraud by local officials is overwhelming. The election is then illegitimate. The Electoral College avoids this because even if one county of one state commits fraud, it will not be enough to impact the overall election.
(This is why I urge you to vote con)
My fourth point is the Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority. The cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. This government ensures liberty and equality maintain an optimal balance for all citizens. As former senator James Eastland writes, "Because of winner-take-all (under the electoral system), a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each State; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. Since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same votes. Both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interest which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition." This has so many great benefits, including reasonable polices that are widely appropriate in nature. Under a direct popular vote, no such system would hold. Candidates must currently be able to get a majority of votes in a statewide election to obtain even a single electoral vote. Ideologically extreme candidates are discouraged from running because they know they cannot appeal to that wide of an electorate. Under direct popular vote, however, there is no need to win statewide majorities and therefore elections will become crowded with extreme candidates. This will further polarize politics as candidates make specific appeals to narrow voter interests. Then, the President will not be elected by a large body politic. He or she will be the voice of only a few.
This is why I urge you to vote con
Debate Round No. 1
neveragain

Pro

First you say that it will give smaller states a say in presidential elections, firstly electoral college gives hardly any say to the little states the electoral votes in those states are very little and candidates skip over those to go to states with the most electoral votes such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina(http://thisnation.com...)
and in order to be elected president you only have to win those states which goes against one person one vote and against the deceleration of independence "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal" all me are equal and should get 1 vote per 1 person not depending on electors. You talked about recounts… we have computers to do that for us and is a recount worth it if we find out we would have had a president wrongfully elected. You also stated fraud what about the year 2000 Gore against Bush. How would you also explain faithless leaders that go against the peoples will of who should vote. For these reason I urge you to vote con.
cyman

Con

You say that the electoral college gives hardly any say to the little states but with direct popular vote the little states would have very little say. California has a population of 37,253,956 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) with Wyoming having 563,626 (http://quickfacts.census.gov...) So then all of the candidates would be fighting for the 37 million instead of that half a million. Where with the electoral college, the votes will be more equal. From my calculations the electoral college is 18 times different amount of votes and direct popular vote is 66 times different amount of votes. With electoral college the votes in smaller states are still important unlike with direct popular vote. So this proves your first rebuttal wrong.
Bush vs Gore was one time out of 200 elections. A.K.A it means it is VERY rare.
For these reasons i urge you to vote con. Even my opponent said to!
Debate Round No. 2
neveragain

Pro

First off I am sorry for the pro con mix up I have a slight case of dyslexia I am sorry for that. Now back to business there were 4 elections in which this happened actually times (http://www.infoplease.com...) and it may be rare but it will still happen and it is unavoidable so switch to where this will not happen again. Also I would like to state that this is what the people want electoral college to be abolished almost 75% want to switch to direct popular!!!!(http://elections.firedoglake.com...)
Give the people what they want its time for a change!!!! I urge you to vote pro.
cyman

Con

First off his evidence didn't support what he said. He said 75% of the people in America want the electoral college trashed. However, he evidence didn't say how many people where surveyed. It could have been 100people for all we know. We also don't know if the people polled where educated on the electoral college. So I believe the evidence is invalid. His other evidence didn't prove that there where four recounts. So that is also invalid.
My points where:
1. The Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections.
2.there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts
3.Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways
4.The Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority.
The electoral college protects all the states so they will not get "drowned out" in elections. It also has few recounts. Where in direct popular vote it is inevitable. Direct popular vote is flawed. The electoral college creates a reasonable, moderate majority.
For these points, I urge you to vote CON!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
neveragaincymanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made false assumptions in all his arguments thus misrepresenting the electoral college and the reasons or same. Also, pro relied on circular reasoning, a fallacy.
Vote Placed by t-man 5 years ago
t-man
neveragaincymanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Wasn't a good debate. Towrds the end Con did better. But only by a bit
Vote Placed by WriterSelbe 5 years ago
WriterSelbe
neveragaincymanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Wall! Wall! WALL! Don't-----do that!
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 5 years ago
Chuz-Life
neveragaincymanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Though i did not have a preference for the outcome of this debate, I have to admit that I knew the electoral college was created and has lasted for good (sound) reasons. Con did well in presenting and listing those reasons and they are still compelling today. Hat's off to Pro for making a good case for the "direct popular vote."