The Instigator
byaka2013
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is the Electoral College a Good Way to Have an Election?

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  
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: 3/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 617 times Debate No: 101364
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

byaka2013

Con

The Electoral College means that your vote doesn't matter and the 1% buys the vote. States are unfairly represented and swing states really only matter. Popular vote has been divergent of electoral 5 times now, so when will it end? We need a fair system, not this disaster. I am calling for direct popular voting, removing this whole system of 55 for CA, etc. This is not democracy- this is oligarchy.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

What a bunch of f*cling gibberish- the U.S. is called the United States for a reason. It was only ever supposed to be a Union of Sovereign Nations. That's why Senators used to be elected by State Assemblies. You do know vote buying is illegal right- and no, having smaller states represented as to offset mob rule is not oligarchy. It's called checks and balances. What if I said that there should be a popular vote between the U.S. and China to see who would be the leader of both? You would not think this a very good idea.
Debate Round No. 1
byaka2013

Con

I was not talking about China, although I see your point. https://en.wikipedia.org... says 43% of Americans are Democrat and 39% are Republican (which is fine as they are both conservative anyway). I would agree with you if the electors had to vote for the popular vote as ratio, but this is not the case. They can vote for whoever they want. I like the idea of the system, but it means your vote doesn't matter.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

No- faithless electors have never been able to actually swing the election. So until they do, your vote still counts- it just counts toward the elector vote of your respective state. The Presidential election that you vote in is not Federal- it is state level, and with regard to how your state votes, it does count.
Debate Round No. 2
byaka2013

Con

The main problem is that the 'electors' can choose whoever they want to win. This has been contradictory with the popular vote on 4 occasions. So, while 'America' elects one person, the electors chose another. https://www.youtube.com... claims that, looking at Ohio, when calculating population over average electoral vote per person, you get 20, whereas Ohio only has 18 electoral votes. Californians, by this logic, are 10 votes short of what they *should* get.
Let's say you think the point of the EC is to make it so candidates have to pay attention to all the states. If this is your goal, it is failing. According to fairvote.org, only 18 states received even a single candidate visit from the last 2 months of the 2016 election. But CA is missing, and so is TX, etc. So candidates can ignore many states, while only paying attention to the swing states.
TheMarketLibertarian

Pro

Those were not caused by faithless electors, they were caused by smaller states having representation that is disproportionate to their population. This is good because it restrains the mob.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.