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

Do Electors have the moral responsibility to vote the way the popular vote turned out?

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
Admiral_Ackbar1 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 97156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




The United States government is a democracy, "by the people, of the people, for the people." It is supposed to represent the will of the people and is based on the principle that everyone gets a voice, and a vote. Those votes should equally, and the candidate with the most votes becomes president. That is not what happened on 11/7/2016. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, yet more electoral votes were pledged to Donald Trump. That does not represent the will of the people.


Before we answer the motion, we need to answer whether Electoral System is wrong. Only when Electoral College is wrong, we can move to the motion.

I'd like to argue that on US' case, Electoral System is not wrong.

What we need to understand that despite The United States is a democracy, is not (exactly) a republic country. In a republic country, the popular vote is the way to go. However, The United States is not a republic, but a (republic) federation. It is not an apple to apple comparison.

There are 50 states in America+ DC. The uniqueness of America's System is that each state has their own autonomy. I'd like to argue that Electoral College respects those autonomies and this does not exist in the popular vote.

Take a look at Alaska, representing 0.23% of the US. Under the Electoral System, this is doubled to 0.55% This is important because as an example of the government that respects Alaska. The Electoral System provides an Affirmative Action for the minority that cannot be provided by popular vote.

Without Electoral System, nobody cares about Ohio who represents 3% of the US. The Electoral System provides a way to appreciate the minority without extremely devaluating the majority.

You argued that the Electoral System does not represent the will of the people. I want to argue, that due to the state of the federation, it is correct for Electoral System to represent the will of the state, who in return represents the will of the people. These are two different things, but the latter is the correct action for a federation country.

We're not going to debate whether federation is the way to go since that is outside the state of the debate.

I'd like to argue that nothing is wrong with Electoral System, thus the Electoral has no moral responsibility nor any reason to betray the result.
Debate Round No. 1


If Alaska represents .23% of the population, why should the government give them control of .53% of the Electoral College? Especially if that respect comes out of California's total representation in the Electoral College. Also, you say it protects the minority, yet it is possible for a presidential candidate to win the election with about 22% of voters voting for them. So, why even focus on the other 78% of the country. This other 78% includes a large majoritIty of minorities and the majority of the voting public. One fifth of the population should not have enough power to choose our president, therefore the Electoral System is wrong, and our president should be the one selected by the citizen's majority.


It is important for Alaska since we're talking about a federation state. Just because one state is more populous, it does not mean they can hoard the vote. Alaska, who represent only .23% of the population, provides a gigantic amount of income by oil production. Alaska produces 9.3% of the GSP that America own?

Are you saying that because they have the *highest* GSP:population ratio, they deserve next to the lowest amount of vote on deciding the president?

You're punishing efficiency!

Alaska deserves affirmative action and Electoral College provides the most fair that the current status quo has to offer.

Second, I do not agree with the 22% of the votes. I understand where the number comes from but you're talking about an extreme worst case. You are comparing Electoral College is bad with the extreme worst case scenario is like comparing driving is bad when people dies from driving or having Google is bad because that allows people to search how to commit suicide. Oh yeah, people drives from driving! But we still drive because all things are equal, driving brings more benefit than harm. Oh yeah, people googles how to commit suicide, but all things are equal, Google brings more benefit than harm.

Worst scenario analysis does not work here. If how you attack is by giving an extreme example, let me give you another extreme example. With Electoral College, you only need to monopolize 11 states. With the majority vote, you only need to monopolize 9 states. This violates even further the concept of federation.

We concede that Electoral College is not perfect, but we'd like to argue popular voice is worse. The concept of popular vote damages the concept of Federalism even further.

Judging by Pro's argument, the Pro believes that Federalism is wrong. Clearly, the pro is debating the wrong motion. The Pro is making a Scarecrows Fallacy. He believes that by attacking Federalism, he attacks Electoral College. That is not the case.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by toocoolblue 1 year ago
The Popular Vote was not counted. Nor was it contested. The statistical fluke you wrongly call the Popular Vote, is just the product Trump not campaigning on the West Coast.

If the Popular Vote had actually been counted, Trump's Landslide Victory would have been even larger.

If Trump can win the very heart of the Left - Ohio,Wisc.,Penn.,Mich. etc.. he certainly wouldn't have lost California by 30 points - had he actually campaigned there.
Posted by BMHTheGreat 1 year ago
It was the 8th of November...
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.