The Instigator
happy-bread
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
GWindeknecht1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
happy-bread
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 17,441 times Debate No: 18971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (3)

 

happy-bread

Con

This will be a PF style debate.
Round 1: Pro begins debate by presenting its case.
Round 2: Con presents own case and attacks opponents' case. Pro defends his case and attacks Con's case.
Round 3: CX. Con questions. Pro's responses and questions.
Round 4: Con's responses. Pro's "final focus" (telling why they think they won)
Round 5: Con's "final focus". Pro does no arguing or rebutting (pro started the debate so Con should finish it to keep the debate as fair as possible).

Also, I would like to ask the voters to only vote on who made the more convincing arguments and who used more reliable resources. (a forfeit in any of the rounds will result in an automatic loss)
GWindeknecht1

Pro

Affirmative Case- November PF Topic

Resolved: Direct Popular vote should replace the Electoral College for presidential elections.
My partner and I affirm the resolution and offer 3 contentions finding direct popular vote to be the preferred method of presidential elections. Firstly, the electoral college distorts our democratic process. Second, the Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the many. Thirdly, the Electoral College forces candidates into battlefield states rather than to the nation.
Contention One: The electoral college distorts our democratic process.
Sub-point A:The electoral college creates an imbalance of voting power, contorting our elections. According to the American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research in December 22, 2002, quote "A vote in Wyoming is worth approximately 4 times as much as a vote in California. The electoral college is directly responsible for this imbalance in vote value. Simply stated, the electoral college produces an unfair scenario in favor of small states in every election. The Inter-Parliamentary Union reported in 2006 that a quote "free and fair election" is an imperative condition that a democracy must have as a foundation.
Subpoint B: Distortion in our political process must be solved, and the Direct Popular vote is our solution. In keeping with democratic traditions, it is necessary to pursue the most free and fair elections, where simply living in Wyoming cannot be a deciding factor. When a vote in Wyoming is approximately 4 times as valuable as a vote in California, something must be done to combat this. The answer is the direct popular vote. Direct Popular vote repairs this distortion by creating an even playing field and placing every vote value at the same value: One.
Contention Two: The Electoral College is subject to the whims 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 essential give the elector the desired candidate of the state. However, the problem therein lies 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 of the Northwestern School of Law wrote in December of 2006, that "faithless electors" control too much power, and can arbitrarily and dramatically change the outcomes of an election at a whim. Professor William G. Ross of Stamford University wrote in regards to the Bush and Gore election of 2000, quote "in past elections, so-called "faithless electors" cast innocuously eccentric votes that provided a quaint reminder of one of the archaic curiosities of the presidential selection process". In other words, faithless electors have defected against the will of the people to serve their own interests.
Subpoint A: The Direct Popular Vote fixes this dilemna.
The direct popular vote removes the possibility of faithless electors to dramatically change the outcome of a presidential election. Professor James P. Pfiffner of George Mason University penned that the direct popular vote would solve this rare problem by placing the power of the election back into the hands of the people for which it was intended, rather than keeping it in the hands of the few.
Contention Three: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation.
The Electoral College is not a fair system by any means. It places far too much emphasis on individual states and their interests rather than the interests of the nation. In an article written by Taren Kauffman for the Duke Chronicle on December 1st, 2000, quote "Under the Electoral College system, candidates ignore states that are "safe" for either candidate. For example, I am from Indiana, which has a hefty 12 electoral votes, but is heavily Republican. Both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore ignored Indiana. If the president were selected by direct popular vote, the candidates would have had incentive to campaign in Indiana, because they could swayed the undecided voters who, under the Electoral College system, did not matter." The direct popular vote would fix this discrepancy by making voting power equal across the nation and allowing candidates to address the nation, not just a few states.
In conclusion, because the Electoral College distorts democratic processes, and because the electoral college is subject to the whims of the few rather than the people, and because the Electoral College forces candidates to small states rather than the nation, and because the Direct popular vote fixes all 3 problems; I urge an affirmative ballot.
Debate Round No. 1
happy-bread

Con

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention have ever been found incompatible with personal security or rights of property and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Because I agree with this quote I negate the resolution: Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in United States presidential elections for the following reasons. Direct popular vote goes against the intent of the Constituiton and it protects the rights of small states.

For the purposes of today's debate I would like to provide the following definitions:
Democracy: rule by the majority (merriam webster dictionary)
Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. (the free dictionary.com)

Contention 1: Direct popular vote goes against the original intent of the Constituion and the Founding Fathers.

Direct popular vote should not replace the electoral college because it is a step of democratization for the United States. Supporters of direct popular vote argue that democratization is desirable. However, it is the opposite. Joe Wolverton author of The New American says, "any democratization of the presidential election process is an affront to the express intent of our Founders. The men who constructed our federal government zealously guarded against permitting the harmful influence of democracy to infect the inner workings of our nation." The United States should not taking steps towards democracy because America is not a democracy for good reason. Alexander Hamilton once said, "We are a Republican government, real liberty is never found in despotism of the extremes of democracy." Any form of democracy within the U.S is not disirable. The John Birch Society's documentary, Overview of America, affirms this by saying, "Democracy itself is not a stable form of government, instead it is the gradual transition from a limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy." Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the Gradual destruction of a republican government like that of the United States and turns it into a governmental rule of the few that denies individual liberties.

Contention 2: 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 which is why i urge a negative ballot for today's debate.

And now to attack my opponents case:
In response to his first contention sub-point A, he says that "the electoral college produces an unfair scenario in favor of small states." However, without the electoral college, the small states would get no say in presidential elections at all, they would be drowned out by the larger states (see second contention). He also says that "free and fair election is an imperative condition that a democracy must have as a foundation. However, as i proved in my first contention America isnt even a democracy, so obviously this point doesnt stand.

In response to his first contention sub-point B, he basically says that the distortion of the electoral college must be solved, but this isnt true since the distortion was specifically put in place to create "free and fair elections" with regards to equality of states.

In his second contention he says the electors that are voted for by the people can go against the popular vote of their state. However, according to U.S. Electoral College FAQ's "Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged(1)." Which means that electors voting against their states is the exception to the rule. Also, according to Joe Wolverton, "In the ease of the Electoral College, the Founders inteded the electors to be a deliberative convention of wise men brought together for the sole purpose of soberly choosing a President form among the available candidates." This shows that the intent of the Founders was to trust electors more than the people to choose the President.

In his second contention sub-point A, he says that direct popular vote fixes the problem of faithless electors Dramatically change the outcome of Presidential elections. However, how can faithless electors "dramatically" change elections if they only occur 1 percent of the time? He also states that "the election needs to be put back in the hands of the people for which it was intended." However, the original intention was for the electors to elect the president not the people. The people only influence who the electors will vote for.

In his third contention he says that because of the electoral college, candidates focus all their attention on a few batleground states; however, as I stated in my second contention if direct popular vote decided presidential elections, then candidates wouldnt need to pay attention to small states, only large ones with high populations which means that although the electoral college doesnt solve the problem of candidates ignoring certain states, neither does direct popular vote which means that this contention doesnt prove why direct popular vote should replace the electoral college. Therefore, it is void.

(1) http://www.archives.gov...
GWindeknecht1

Pro


I'll first go over my opponents case then back over my own.

Refutation for Contention 1:
When looking at the history of our great nation, it is easy to see that the Founding Fathers played a very significant role in shaping the outcome of our nation. However, they were human. An integral characteristic of humanity is to make mistakes. We cannot pretend that our Founding Fathers were omnipotent, all knowing gods who could never make a mistake. That would be illogical. Rather, let's take each of their ideas and decide upon them individually.
They came up with the Electoral College as a way to vote on presidential elections. However, back in the 1700s, they were unable to envision the future of our democracy. They could not have seen the distortion created by the electoral college. Yes, maybe the Electoral College was a good way to go in the 1700s, but times have changed. And it's the time the United States adopted a policy where every vote counts equally: the direct popular vote.

Refutation for Contention 2:

My opponent seems to believe that with a direct popular vote, small states will disappear from the map. This simply isn't the case. In an era of mass media, very few citizens actually get to meet a candidate, much less talk with them. Small states will still be vitally important to each and every election as there are millions of undecided voters within each state. Small states will still have a voice, yet with the direct popular vote, that voice will become more porportionate.

Back to my own case:
Contention One:
The goal here is to get every state to have a porportionate voice, something not achieved by the Electoral College. A porportionate voice is exactly what the Direct Popular Vote would give us.

Contention 2:
In the Bush v. Gore election of 2000, the votes in Florida were still up in the air. The decision of the presidency came down to just a few people. Imagine had these few decided to go against popular opinion. They would have changed the course of this nation. Though yes, it is a rare occurence, we still should not chance the fate of our nation with just a few people. Let's not take the risk. Vote for the Direct Popular Vote.

Contention 3: My opponent fails to realize that the Electoral College also has integral flaws. Look to my Duke Chronicle evidence, it shows that states like Indiana are still left out of the races. Instead of arbitrarily mandating which small states should recieve a disporportionate amount of power, we should allow candidates to freely choose where to go and give all states a porportionate voice.

I'll simply list my questions, my opponent must answer each question.

1) Were the Founding Fathers always right?

2) Could the Founding Fathers have predicted the distortion in our democracy today?

3) You said "Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the gradual destruction of a republican government...". So please explain why our citizens vote at all if democratic voting is inherently detrimental.

4) Please cite an instance in the U.S. that democracy has turned "into a government rule of the few that denies individual liberties"?

5) Was the Bill of Rights not meant to protect individual liberties?

6) Can we not have democracy and liberties?

7) Why do smaller states have to be represented disporportionately?

8) Wouldn't small states shall have their voice, their vote, during elections?

9) Shouldn't the most citizens be represented? a.k.a the larger states?

10) In an era of media, it is necessary for all citizens to get up close and personal to each and every single candidate?

11) Is the Electoral College not, in essence, a direct popular vote by state?

12) Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth 4 times as much as a vote in California?

13) What is the ideal vote value?

14) As you well know I'm sure, in the Bush/Gore election, the crucial votes in Florida came down to a few electors. Would we even want to chance the outcome of an entire presidential election by giving all the power to just a few people?

15) Should voting power be porpotional to population?


I urge an affirmative vote.

Debate Round No. 2
happy-bread

Con

Pro wasn't supposed to post his questions till next round but thats alright, that just gives us an extra round of debate in between CX and the Final Focus. Sorry for all the structure, anyways back to the debate!

The following answers are in response to my opponent's questions from round 2 (his questions first then my responses):
1) Were the Founding Fathers always right?
No
2) Could the Founding Fathers have predicted the distortion in our democracy today?
Yes, because they purposefully caused the distortion to protect the interests of states with small populations.

3) You said "Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the gradual destruction of a republican government...". So please explain why our citizens vote at all if democratic voting is inherently detrimental.
Citizens vote because according to my definition of Republic, citizens elect their representative to make decisions for them.

4) Please cite an instance in the U.S. that democracy has turned "into a government rule of the few that denies individual liberties"?
There are no instances in the U.S. since the U.S. is not a democracy. However according to the John Birch Society's documentary, Overview of America, "the founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt because they knew the democracy of the early Greek city-states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy and finally tyranny under an oligarchy."

5) Was the Bill of Rights not meant to protect individual liberties?
Yes, the Bill of Rights was meant to protect individual liberties.

6) Can we not have democracy and liberties?
No, we cannot have democracy and liberties.

7) Why do smaller states have to be represented disporportionately?
They aren't, they are represented proportionally by being given a voice in elections. Otherwise, they would be drowned out by larger states. See my source from Bruce Walker in response to question 12.

8) Wouldn't small states shall have their voice, their vote, during elections?
I dont fully understand this question due to the wording, anyways the people would still have their vote, but their cumulation of votes for the state they are in wouldn't be able to compete with the cumulation of votes for the larger states. (also refer to my example in response to questin #15)

9) Shouldn't the most citizens be represented? a.k.a the larger states?
No, the most citizens should not be represented if that representation results in democratization or the loss of rights for small states.

10) In an era of media, it is necessary for all citizens to get up close and personal to each and every single candidate?
No? There is a difference between campaigning in a state and meeting every person in that state. For example, television commercials.

11) Is the Electoral College not, in essence, a direct popular vote by state?
Yes, it is a direct popular vote of the electors that represent that state.

12) Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth 4 times as much as a vote in California?
So that the state of Wyoming has a voice in presidential elections and isn't drowned out by California. Bruce Walker, author of American Thinker affirms this by saying, "The National Popular Vote Compact is supposed to solve two problems. Voters in small states have votes that count more than voters in large states. This is not a "problem," however, but rather an important safeguard granted by the Constitution to protect smaller states."

13) What is the ideal vote value?
1, however, what is ideal and what is required are often different things.

14) As you well know I'm sure, in the Bush/Gore election, the crucial votes in Florida came down to a few electors. Would we even want to chance the outcome of an entire presidential election by giving all the power to just a few people?
The electors were influenced by the votes of the people and submitted their electoral votes according to what the citizens of their state wanted. There were no "faithless electors".

15) Should voting power be porpotional to population?
No, they should be porpotional to area/state. Let me provide an example. In this hypothetical scenario the Electoral College no longer exists and is replaced by direct popular vote. Lets say one of the two major candidates makes a campaign promise that helps California. And the other candidate makes a campaign promise that helps Wyoming. But since there is no Electoral College, the votes of the people of Wyoming are drowned out by those of California and the candidate with the promise that helps California wins.

And now to move on to my questions, my opponent must answer each question:
1) Can you please explain the piece of evidence that you keep repeating that says, "A vote in Wyoming is worth approximately 4 times as much as a vote in California?" or provide a link to the evidence so I can further understand what it is saying.

2) According to the only proposed definitions, is America a Democracy or a Republic?

2a) If America is a Republic, then how can your first contention still stand if it is based on a democratic America?

3) Do you agree that direct popular vote represents the popular majority?

3a) If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents states regardless of population?

3b) If there are reasons to maintain state representation in the Senate as it exists today, shouldn't those same reasons apply to the choice of president?

3c) Then why apply a sentimental attachment to the popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College?

4) According to the resolutions wording, "direct popular vote should replace the electoral college," is the burden of proof placed upon Pro? Which means that Pro must not only prove the problems of the electoral college, but also explain HOW DIRECT POPULAR VOTE FIXES THOSE PROBLEMS.

4a) If one of your attacks against the electoral college cannot be solved by direct popular vote, is the contention containing the attack and contentions relating to the attack void?

4b) In defense of your third contention, you said "my opponent fails to realize that the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Does this quote suggest that direct popular vote doesn't solve the problem of candidates focusing on a few closely contested states discussed in your third contention?

5) If the Constitution isn't applicable today then is the Supreme Court's ruling on the Constitutionality of laws applicable?

I urge a negative ballot.
GWindeknecht1

Pro

To clarify, if you read the Round format, it does say I can post my questions to the debate. I did not break any formatting rules.

1) Well, if you look at the value of each individual vote per election, you see massive distortion created in each state. Wyoming has 600,000 people and have 3 electoral votes (600,000 divided by 3= 200,000). California has 36 million people and only 55 electoral votes (36,000,000 divided by 55= 654,545) Thus you can see that 1 vote in Wyoming has the representational power of 3.54 votes in California, a distortion of 354%.

2) America is a Democratic Republic, defeating both of your definitions. [1]

2a) Not applicable since America is not solely a Republic, but a Democratic Republic.

3) Popular vote represents the national majority. The Electoral College is the state majority.

3a) Of course not. I don't see your logic there. The Senate serves the states. That is it's express purpose. The House of Representatives serves the people.

3b) States are already represented. We need to put the power in the hands of the people, not the states.

3c) Your flow of questions is becoming unclear, please define the "sentimental attachment".

4) If you read my 1st round case, you can clearly see the Subpoints explained, in detail, how the Electoral College fixes each and every distortion created by the Electoral College.

4a) Throughout the Rounds, I have repeatedly shown how the Direct Popular Vote fixes these distortions. Please actually read my cases.

4b) Once again, you have to read everything written. It is clear you did not read my case.

5) Your flow of questions is illogical. The Supreme Court's ability to judge Constitutionality is still applicable. Not sure where this question came from.

I offer an observations:

1)- My opponent has obviously failed to read my case, or he wouldn't have asked many questions.


Let's look at the entire round today: (Round formatting does say I can respond)

My opponent's only contentions for the Electoral College to remain is that it was the Founding Fathers' intent and Small states are being protected.

Refutation 1: Founding Fathers' Intent

This argument requires a few answers:
1: The Founding Fathers were not always right.
2: The Founding Fathers could not have seen the distortions created by the Electoral College.
3: The original reasons for the Electoral College are no longer applicable.
4: There is absolutely no impact for this point.
5: We need to look at what is happening today, not to the happenings of the 1770s.

Refutation 2: Small States

This argument also requires a fwe answers:
1. Small states aren't protected by the Electoral College. (Montana, Alaska, N. Dakota, etc. etc.)
2. Under the Electoral College, even larger states are being ignored (Indiana, in my Duke Chronicle evidence)
3. Small states are disporportionately represented.
4. Representation should be porportional to population.
5. Small states willl still have a major voice in elections.

For these reasons, I urge an affirmative ballot.

Debate Round No. 3
happy-bread

Con

First of all, I would like to apologize, I should have declared if one of my questions was a clarification question. It seems that by me not declaring what questions were clarification questions my opponent got confused about what I was asking.

In response to my second question he said that America is a Democratic Republic, which is a type of Republic which means that America is in fact a Republic. However in response to question 2a he says that it is not applicable since america isnt a Republic but in the previous question he confirmed that America is a Republic.

In response to my third question he agreed that popular vote represents the popular majority which was a clarification question. In 3a he says that the Senate should not be ablolished because it serves the states. However, if you apply his answer of 3a to the question of 3b it would say that since the Senate should not be abolished because it protects states rights shouldnt the electoral college not be abolished because it protects state rights? And finally in response to question 3c he simply asks for me to define sentimental attachment instead of answering the question which I will do. The sentimental attachment to popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College basically means that if you have no reason to abolish the Senate even though it doesnt represent popular majority, then why only apply rights of the popular majority in attacking the electoral college? And now I ask my opponent to answer this question now that it has been clarified.

In response to my fourth question he accuses me of not reading his case; however, this is a clarification question that AGREES with him. It simply asks if the burden of proof is on PRO which as he displayed throughout his entire case he agrees with that question. 4a is another clarification question...it is asking that since the burden of proof is on PRO then if one of his contentions doesnt prove that direct popular vote fixes the problem should the contention be void? I am asssuming he affirms this question considering he says that it is in his case. And finally in 4b he doesnt respond at all he simply says that I didnt read his case. However, since he agreed to question 4 and 4a in his case which means that if he doesnt prove that one of his contention fixes one of the problems proposed in that contention, it is void. Question 4b is questioning the validity of his third contention since he admitted that "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws" which means that he is implying that direct popular vote has integral flaws which means that it DOESNT fix the problem proposed by PRO in his third contention which makes his third contention void.

In response to question 5 he only answers the second part of the question which was that the Supreme Court is still applicable. He also asks where this question came from. It came from my opponent's entire rebuttal to my first contention which is basically saying that the Founders werent always right and the electoral college is in a different situation now than back then. My fifth question is simply asking, if the Constitution is still applicable today (for example the Supreme Courts ruling of the Constitutionaliy of laws), then why is the Constitution not applicable only for the Electoral College? I would like to ask my opponent to briefly answer this question now that it has been clarified along with question 3c.

Defenses:
Founding Fathers could have seen distortion since they purposefully placed it there.
Electoral College is no longer applicable, but the rest of the Constitution is? How is the Electoral College no longer applicable, we still have citizens, states and a Federal government dont we?
Impact is the harmful effects of democracy.
Democracy is as harmful now as it was in the 1770s.

Refutations:
Contention 1: Distorts our democratic process
We are a republic not a democracy.
a) Imbalance of power voting was purposefully placed to protect small states.
b) Distortion must not be solved since it will result in the loss of small states influence in presidential elections.

Contention2: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the public as a whole.
That is the purpose of a Republic.
99% of electors vote accordingly to how they pledged. (U.S. Electoral College FAQ's)
a) If it aint broke dont fix it. Faithless electors have never decided an election.

Contention 3: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation.
I agree that this is a negative impact of the electoral college; however, as stated in my second contention, direct popular vote wouldn't be able to fix this problem either which he admits to be saying "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Therefore, his third contention is void.

I can only see a negative ballot for today's debate.
GWindeknecht1

Pro

This debate is becoming more and more distorted, somewhat like the Electoral College. Though I will do my best to follow my opponent's Fourth Round statement and reply.

"In response to my second question he said that America is a Democratic Republic, which is a type of Republic which means that America is in fact a Republic. However in response to question 2a he says that it is not applicable since america isnt a Republic but in the previous question he confirmed that America is a Republic."

The United States is not a democracy, it is not a republic, it is a democratic republic.

"In 3a he says that the Senate should not be ablolished because it serves the states. However, if you apply his answer of 3a to the question of 3b it would say that since the Senate should not be abolished because it protects states rights shouldnt the electoral college not be abolished because it protects state rights?"

The Senate of the U.S. Congress and the Electoral College are two very different topics. The Senate represents the states, the Electoral College is a presidential election device. This is illogical. The Electoral College does not protect small states, it damages some such as Indiana. The direct popular vote gives a porportional voice to all states. I'll attempt to make this as clear as possible for you:
1- Electoral College protects some states, hurts others
2- Popular vote gives porportional voice to all states
3-The U.S. Senate is an entirely different topic

"The sentimental attachment to popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College basically means that if you have no reason to abolish the Senate even though it doesnt represent popular majority, then why only apply rights of the popular majority in attacking the electoral college?"

Again, the Senate is an entirely different topic. Senate serves the states, the House the people. The Electoral College is a presidential election device, stick to the resolution.

The burden of proof still lies upon me to prove that the Direct Popular Vote should replace the Electoral College in presidential elections. I have shown how each of my contentions fixes fundamental flaws in the Electoral College.


""the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws" which means that he is implying that direct popular vote has integral flaws which means that it DOESNT fix the problem proposed by PRO in his third contention which makes his third contention void."

I don't follow you at all here. The Electoral College and the Direct Popular Vote are very different.

"if the Constitution is still applicable today (for example the Supreme Courts ruling of the Constitutionaliy of laws), then why is the Constitution not applicable only for the Electoral College? I would like to ask my opponent to briefly answer this question now that it has been clarified along with question 3c."

The original Constitution has been changed and altered many times. Each part of the Constitution has been reviewed at one time or another. Simply because one part is distorted does not mean the entire Constitution is distorted.

"Founding Fathers could have seen distortion since they purposefully placed it there. -
Then let's fix the distortion.
Electoral College is no longer applicable, but the rest of the Constitution is? How is the Electoral College no longer applicable, we still have citizens, states and a Federal government dont we? -
Just because one part of the Constitution is debatable does not mean we have to remove the entirety of the Constitution. Don't be illogical.
Impact is the harmful effects of democracy. -
What harmful effects? You've failed to show any actual effects.
Democracy is as harmful now as it was in the 1770s." -
What harmful effects?

"Refutations:
Contention 1: Distorts our democratic process
We are a republic not a democracy. ---
We are a Democratic Republic.
a) Imbalance of power voting was purposefully placed to protect small states. ---
It also damages small states.
b) Distortion must not be solved since it will result in the loss of small states influence in presidential elections."
---- Instead of prioritizing Iowa and New Hampshire above all else, let's give each state a porportional voice.

"Contention2: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the public as a whole.
That is the purpose of a Republic.
99% of electors vote accordingly to how they pledged. (U.S. Electoral College FAQ's)
a) If it aint broke dont fix it. Faithless electors have never decided an election."

Why should we even take the chance of giving 3 people the power to change the outcome of a presidential election?

"Contention 3: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation.
I agree that this is a negative impact of the electoral college; however, as stated in my second contention, direct popular vote wouldn't be able to fix this problem either which he admits to be saying "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Therefore, his third contention is void."

Yes, the Electoral College has integral flaws, that is exactly why we must switch to the Direct popular vote. My third contention is not void in this manner. Direct Popular Vote, as I've said many many times, would fix this problem. It would make candidates speak to the nation, not just Iowa or New Hampshire. Let's give every state a porportional voice, vote Pro.

I'll be honest, I did my best to follow my opponents rebuttals but they were rather twisted and difficult to follow.
Regardless, I urge a vote in the affirmative.

Debate Round No. 4
happy-bread

Con

To start off, a few clarifications:
1) I agree that the United States is a democratic republic. THIS MAKES IT A REPUBLIC. Democratic is just an adjective describing Republic. For example, happy bread. Just because a piece of bread is happy doesn't mean that it isnt still bread, it is just happy bread.

2) The Senate DOES have to do with the Electoral College because it protects state rights, as does the Electoral College.

3) Popular vote gives porportional voice to INDIVIDUALS not STATES. The voice of the smaller states with direct popular would NOT be porpotional to the larger states.

4) PRO- "The burden of proof still lies upon me to prove that the Direct Popular Vote should replace the Electoral College in presidential elections. I have shown how each of my contentions fixes fundamental flaws in the Electoral College."
However, this is not true. When I attack your third contention by saying that direct popular vote will force candidates to ignore states too, your defense is that the Electoral College has the flaw of ignored states by candidates, NOT that direct popular vote fixes the problem.

5) The Electoral College and Direct Popular Vote are similar in regards to the fact that neither of them solves the problem of ignored states within campaigns. And since Pro had the burden of proof to say that direct popular vote solves the problems of the Electoral College, this point goes to the negative.

6) Distortion doesn't need to be fixed if it is put there PURPOSEFULLY to protect small states.

7) My opponent asked me what the harmful effects were of democracy, and that I failed to show any actual effects. Therefore, I will list all the harmful effects that I have shown throughout the entire debate.
"Democracy itself is not a stable form of government, instead it is the gradual transition from a limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy."
"the founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt because they knew the democracy of the early Greek city-states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy and finally tyranny under an oligarchy."

8) Small states aren't prioritized through the Electoral College, they are made equal to the larger states through the Electoral College. I dont see how equality of states is a bad thing.

9) Faithless electors have never decided an election. Therefore, why "fix" a problem that has never occured before and statistically probably never will.

10) This seems to be one of the more important points of the debate which is why I will answer it again even though I already answered it in #4. I agree that the Electoral College has flaws in regards to some states aren't recognized during campaigns. However, in order for this point to be awarded it to Pro, Pro must prove that direct popular vote can solve this problem. It doesnt though, because as I proved in my second contention, with direct popular vote, the candidates will only focus on larger states, ignoring the smaller states. Bob Nutting of the Maine House Republicans affirms this by saying, "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."

Since Pro started the debate, I would like it if he only used the final half of the fifth round to say a couple closing sentences at most. Thank you

I can only see a negative ballot for today's debate. Vote Con
GWindeknecht1

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for the interesting debate this evening.

A few observations:

1) My opponent failed to realize the U.S. is a democratic republic many times.
2) My opponent failed to discern the difference between a democratic republic and a republic.
3) My opponent has confused the Senate with the Electoral College.
4) My opponent confused individuals with states.
5) My opponent never refuted the fact that the voices weren't proportional.
6) If my opponent had taken the time to fully read my case, he would have realized that I showed in each of my points how the Direct Popular Vote fixes the problem.
7) My opponent argues distortion is good. I argue distortion in elections is bad.
8) My opponent still fails to list a single, real, non-theoretical negative impact of democracy.
9) Equality of states is guaranteed by the Senate, not by elections.
10) Electoral College is disproportional, Direct Popular Vote is proportional.
11) My opponent agrees the Electoral College has flaws.

To finally clarify the debate:

My opponent argued that I never showed how the Direct Popular Votes fixes these distortions. Here are my quotes from Round 1:
"Direct Popular vote repairs this distortion by creating an even playing field and placing every vote value at the same value: One."
"Direct popular vote would solve this rare problem by placing the power of the election back into the hands of the people for which it was intended, rather than keeping it in the hands of the few."
"The direct popular vote would fix this discrepancy by making voting power equal across the nation and allowing candidates to address the nation, not just a few states."

I clearly showed how the Direct Popular Votes fixes all distortions. My opponent apparently did not read my cases through.

I would encourage each of the voters to read the entirety of the debate as always. I realize the debate is quite long so I thank you for reading it.

I urge an affirmative ballot today.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
16kadams...you clearly misunderstood what my first contention was saying, it is saying the electoral college is a safeguard against democracy. I dont see what the virginia plan, new jersey plan, or congress has anything to do with the debate at all. Please read the whole debate before voting...
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
LOL the father thing. They choose the Virgina plan mixed with the jersey plan to make it even in the congress, who has the power anyway. So pro won there.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
I probably should have thought about that before I posted this debate...
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
For anybody that is doing PF this november, please dont copy this case.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
We are not going to keep debating in the comments.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
Your final focus was in the fourth round as expressed by the introduction in the first round and also at the end of my fifth round I emphasized the briefness of your final post. I was trying to make the debate as fair as possible so that you didnt start and finish. Oh well I guess it is mostly my fault for the confusing structure but still.
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
They were observations and clarifications, that is a normal final focus.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
Thanks for keeping your final round to a couple sentences...
Posted by GWindeknecht1 5 years ago
GWindeknecht1
In question of eight of mine, it should read "Wouldn't small states still have their voice, their vote?". Sorry typo.
Posted by happy-bread 5 years ago
happy-bread
waylon.fairbanks and imabench
I was trying to make the debate like a PF debate, I dont see the harm in that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
happy-breadGWindeknecht1Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: need scourges pro
Vote Placed by mcgrif15 5 years ago
mcgrif15
happy-breadGWindeknecht1Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a overall superior case and showed that america is a republic, not a democracy. a democracy was the foundaion of pro's cae therefore his case falls.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
happy-breadGWindeknecht1Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Hands down the best debate ive read through in a long time. Con successfully showed how direct popular vote would give a huge and unfair advantage to larger states over smaller states, which would translate into tyranny by majority. Pro argued about how the founding fathers got it wrong but con showed how they purposely saw the consequences of a democracy and instead formed the electoral college. I gave grammar to con because Pro misspelled "proportionate" at least 3 times.... Solid debate