The Instigator
atheistdebater
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
supersosa
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is the Electoral College still necessary?

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 1 vote the winner is...
supersosa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,176 times Debate No: 71009
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

atheistdebater

Con

In this I intend to discuss the necessity of the electoral college. As Con I will be arguing that the Electoral College is obsolete, unnecessary, and harmful to the democratic process. The burden of proof will be shared by both sided.

Definitions:
Electoral College: A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the president and vice president of the U.S. (1)

Necessary: so important that you must do it or have it (2)

Round 1: Acceptance and agreement to terms
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttal's
Round 4: Closing statements

Rules:
1. First round statement must include a statement that both acknowledges and accepts the terms and definitions of this debate.
2. Round 2 is for opening arguments only. That means no rebuttals
3. No new arguments can be made after Round 2
4. A forfeiture is an automatic loss
5. You are required to list all sources

Breaking any of the above mentioned rules constitutes a loss on conduct.

Accepting this debate means that my opponent accepts all terms, conditions, and definitions provided. Any changes may be requested via comment or direct message.
'
Sources:
1: http://dictionary.reference.com...
2: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
supersosa

Pro

Definitions agreed.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistdebater

Con

Thank you Pro, I look forward to an interesting debate!

The Electoral College is no longer necessary in today's technological society. At the time of it's invention the Electoral College was indeed necessary. After all the logistics of counting several million ballots using 18th and 19th century technology in time for inauguration day is unfathomable. But now with the increasing prevalence of computers we have the ability to track each and every vote. The system of assigning an entire state's Electoral College votes going to a single candidate is not only obsolete, but harmful to our democratic process. In this I will discuss several reasons why this system of electing is bad and no longer needed.

Reason 1: It is possible for the loser of the popular vote to win the election.
In the 2000 election between George Bush and Al Gore, Gore won by over half a million votes yet still lost the presidency. (1) The cause of this? The Electoral College. Due to the winner take all system most states have employed in their presidential voting technique, Bush managed to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. And this is not an isolated event. Over the course of our nation's history such an event has happened three times (3). Such an act should be unacceptable even once, and continuing to use such an obviously flawed system is harmful.

Reason 2: Votes are distributed unevenly
Take Wyoming for example. As of 2008 their population stood at 532,668 citizens and they hold 3 Electoral College votes. Texas on the other hand has over 25 Million citizens and has 32 Electoral College votes. This may seem fair at a first glance but simply doing the math revels that a vote cast in Wyoming as far more value than a vote cast in Texas (2). Unfairly valuing votes of some areas more than others goes against the democratic system. Such actions should be unacceptable.

Reason 3: A small minority can control the elections
Let us go back to the 2000 election. While nearly 100 million people showed up to vote, only about 20 million actually had any sway value (2). This is due to the system of the electoral college. Only a small minority (about 20-30%) is needed to win the election. Such actions should be considered unacceptable.

With that I list my arguments and await Pro's opening statements.
Good luck to my opponent.

Sources:
1: http://www.forbes.com...
2: http://www.fairvote.org...
3: http://www.sciencebuzz.org...
supersosa

Pro

I am ready for some debate! Good luck!

Contention 1: Reduces Uncertainty and Prevents Runoffs.
Point 1: The electoral college reduces uncertainty. Electoral college reduces uncertainty because each state, unless extremely close, is not recounted, even in a close election. This reduces cost to the government and confusion. Firstly, if there was a close election using a popular vote, the losing candidate would be inclined to review every single state that they could, including the District of Columbia, to a massive cost to the government due to lawyer fees and recounting fees.
Point 2: The electoral college prevents runoff elections, a very confusing and hard process. In a popular vote, neither candidate may get a majority, causing a runoff election. These are very confusing problems, but electoral college solves this by producing a clear winner.
All in all, electoral college is a simple, efficient way to get elections done.
Contention 2: Gives a voice to small states. For sake of time, I will also use Wyoming and Texas. Again, while Wyoming has a disproportionately large representation, it is still tiny compared to that of Texas. This gives the small states a voice in an election in which they otherwise would have been mainly left out and disregarded. "James Madison"s famous Federalist No. 10 makes clear that the Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy. To be sure, they knew that the consent of the governed was the ultimate basis of government, but the Founders denied that such consent could be reduced to simple majority or plurality rule. In fact, nothing could be more alien to the spirit of American constitutionalism than equating democracy will the direct, unrefined will of the people. The filtering of the popular will through the Electoral College is an affirmation, rather than a betrayal, of the American republic. Doing away with the Electoral College would breach our fidelity to the spirit of the Constitution, a document expressly written to thwart the excesses of majoritarianism. Nonetheless, such fidelity will strike some as blind adherence to the past. The victims in such elections would be those regions too sparsely populated to merit the attention of presidential candidates. Pure democrats would hardly regret that diminished status, but I wonder if a large and diverse nation should write off whole parts of its territory. We should keep in mind the regional conflicts that have plagued large and diverse nations like India, China, and Russia. The Electoral College is a good antidote to the poison of regionalism because it forces presidential candidates to seek support throughout the nation. By making sure no state will be left behind, it provides a measure of coherence to our nation. " -Cato Institute. While this quote is long, it shows how areas not very populated are given a fair shot.
Contention 3: Electoral College allows the U.S. to function as a REPUBLIC. As James Madison implied, "if the majority are allowed to run unchecked, that "Democracy" will lead to quashing the rights of the minority." and said, " Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." A popular vote would lean more to the side of majority rule and less minority rights, or mob rule, which constitutes a democracy. The electoral college supports a republic, which is more stable in nature.
I finish my case and await a rebuttal.
Sources:
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.cato.org...
http://blogs.worldbank.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.c4cg.org...
Debate Round No. 2
atheistdebater

Con

atheistdebater forfeited this round.
supersosa

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the round and the match, according to his rules.
4. A forfeiture is an automatic loss.
I intend to extend my arguments anyway.
Addressing his First reason, sometimes it is better to represent states in the way they are represented in Congress instead of a popular vote. Al Gore was highly regional, and he would have excluded other states if made president.
To his second, this actually helps include small states that otherwise would have been 100% ignored.
To his third, changing to a popular vote would do nothing to increase voter turnout. He says, "This is due to the electoral college." No source, no evidence listed. Popular vote does not increase voter turnout.
Electoral college reduces uncertainty and prevents runoffs, saving money and time.
It gives a voice to the small states.
And it allows the U.S. to function as a Republic.
Thank you and I urge you to vote con, especially as the instigator's own rules disqualify him.
Debate Round No. 3
atheistdebater

Con

atheistdebater forfeited this round.
supersosa

Pro

Again my opponent forfeits.
I urge a Pro Ballot, especially as my opponent has disqualified himself.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Varrack 2 years ago
Varrack
Dang it I would have totally taken this had I been Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
atheistdebatersupersosaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture