The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in presidental elections

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 974 times Debate No: 19369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




This will consist of 3 rounds and I am for the pro side.


The idea that a popular vote should replace the current system for election the President of the United States is not new, nor is it a considered alternative. There are a number of Principles of a Republic which must be stricken prior to this form of election as well as adding the “mob rule mentality”.

Let us first look at the Law in the USA as determined by The Constitution, including Amendments.

The Constitution was adopted by the delegates of the original 13 States after a long debate process. These representatives made certain that the values and principles important to ALL the States were included in this Constitution. One of these was the principle of Representative Governance. This form of Government was, at the time, a radical concept. In substance it was that the States, sovereigns themselves, could elect representatives as they deemed fit to govern themselves. These representatives would then govern State by passing laws and doing those this necessary for an ordered society. Originally no citizen voted in a presidential election. The reasons for this were many buy not least among them was the logical fallacy of ad populem.

The Constitution, and those who ratified it, made clear their intent with the two houses of congress. The House was to be comprised of directly elected representatives of small locals, and the Senate was comprised of State Representatives sent by each State from their State representatives. It is clear that direct election was considered a State matter, but for the Federal Government a Republican form was preferred. The USA is a Republic, not a democracy. Ergo, for this debate the US shall be referred to as a Republic and NOT a Democracy.

Briefly, referring to the USA as a democracy dates to WWI when President Wilson coined the phrase “fighting for democracy”, when referring to America’s reason for being in a war allied with Kingdoms and empires. The United States has never been, nor one hopes, shall never be a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic, governed by laws, which must be in accordance with a Constitution. (England calls itself a Constitutional Monarchy, but has no Constitution.)

Perhaps a listing of some abuses the ratifiers were seeking to avoid would assist in understanding

  1. Large groups exercising control over the minority

  2. Uneducated representation based on popularity

  3. Having votes for persons the voters knew nothing about

  4. Mob rule

  5. Abuses of England and their parliament

  6. Constitutional Governance absent a Constitution

Also considered important at the time of ratification was the character of the voter. In many States women could not vote, but that was a State matter not a federal one. The illiterate had no vote, those who did not own property had no vote, convicted felons had no vote, etc. These restrictions clearly indicate the intent, which was to ensure competent and reasonable representation of the interests of the States. NB Each State determined who could vote, not the Federal Government.

Another principle, so often overlooked by those who prefer mob rule, is that of liberty. We rarely use the term Liberty anymore, we seem to prefer freedom. This does a disservice to the founders of the Enlightenment. Liberty, as defined in Johnson’s dictionary, means to be free from. This concept, as intended by the founders of the US, was for individuals and the States. Thus, individuals were free to enjoy liberty and live absent fear of intervention from the government, and so too was a State free to govern itself. Examples of this intention are legion so a short list:

  1. No Federal taxes on individuals

  2. No Standing Army or Navy

  3. No permanent congressional housing

  4. No agencies of the Federal Government

  5. Two Thirds majority vote on ALL important matters

If the USA goes to pure popular vote it will be the end of the USA and the begging of a new Russia. Individual autonomy will be lost. Personal choice will be gone. There will be no need for congress, as we all get to vote. Worst of all, should some nut be able to convince the majority that any action is “bad” we will persecute those who engage in said action, an end of liberty and an increase in Fatherland Knows Best. (as an aside, the USA was the first nation in history which outlawed a STATE RELIGION)

Abolishing the electoral college requires the destruction of the values of the Constitution. In fact, the destruction of the Constitution itself, making the US a mob, not a nation. Perhaps a better option is to return to the original method of electing a President, no popular vote at all.

Debate Round No. 1


Jammer0619 forfeited this round.


Keep it the way it is.
Debate Round No. 2


Jammer0619 forfeited this round.


guess i win
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.