The Instigator
Dancerchick
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
vmpire321
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote

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 4 votes the winner is...
vmpire321
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,604 times Debate No: 19765
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Dancerchick

Con

I am against popular vote replacing electoral vote.

Contention 1:



Electoral vote enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all of that states electoral votes or none of that states electoral votes.

Contention 2:


The founders intent was to filter the vote so in case of regional antagonism their is a reasonable solution.


Contention 3:

Electoral vote does a better job representing the country as a whole. Since we have different leaders for each state, some of the larger states could over power others votes. Electoral vote provides balance to this. Smaller States Equal Say.

Contention 4:

Recounts are confined to a few states. It avoids recount of the entire nation. If we had to recount through the entire nation, the chances of fraud would go up tremendously. An across the nation recount might be REQUIRED if we had direct popular vote if the president.

Contention 5:

In direct election of the president people might stuff the ballots.... We are not all angles in this world. There is bad people out there.

Contention 6:

it allows small states and small towns to have a say in the election. It allows smaller states with a smaller population, have an equal pull to a larger state. The candidates go to every corner of the battle ground states, so people get to meet and question them, "I'm originally from a small state and I think this is one of the major benefits of the electoral collage." Says David Leip.

Contention 7:

It lowers campaign costs. If politicians did have to campaign equally in every state just so they could get every vote, it would substantially raise the coasts of campaigns. Campaigning like that would cost over 2 BILLION dollars.


Now here is the order in which we go in:

Round 1:
-Con
-Pro

Round 2:
-Con Questions
-Pro Questions

Round 3:
-Con
-Pro




Note: Vote Con! :)
vmpire321

Pro

Well. Hopefully this will be a fun debate.


==ARGUMENTS==



--FLAWS OF ELECTORAL VOTE--


1) Under the Electoral College system, it is possible for a candidate to lose the nationwide popular vote, yet be elected president by winning only in the key states. The majority may not want this candidate, yet they are ignored.

2) Many states get forgotten as candidates rush to campaign on "battle ground" states.Most of the 2008 campaign events occurred in just 19 closely divided "battleground" states. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...

http://www.nytimes.com...


3)The current voting system disfavors against candidates with broad-based support. Here are some examples.

...A)In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes, since his vote was concentrated in southern states. However Wallace received nothing.
...B) In 1968, George Wallace only received 46 electoral votes out of the total 538 electoral votes, with 13% of the votes. http://www.archives.gov... In 1992, Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote. http://www.archives.gov...
...C)If presidential elections were decided by popular vote instead of the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000.

4)The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if a he/she gained a mere 51% of the vote in these 11 states. This calculates out to only be 26% of the nation’s votes.

5) During October 6-9, 2011, a survey of 1,005 random adults found that 62% of Americans would say that they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system.However, little over a third, 35%, said that they would rather keep the Electoral College. America’s government is a government for the people, and this clearly shows where the public’s loyalty lies. http://www.gallup.com...

6) Since 1994, polls have shown that the majority of Americans would prefer a popular vote system over the Electoral College. http://www.gallup.com...

7) A more extensive poll found that more than 70% of Americans support a nationwide vote for electing the President. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...

8) Here’s an example. In Utah, the majority of voters vote Republican. A person’s vote for a Democrat candidate will do nothing to help make him/her president, since all of the electoral college votes will go to the Republican candidate. The electoral college simply decreases and discourages voters, since the minority voters will not be represented.


--BENEFITS OF POPULAR VOTE--


1)The National Popular Vote means that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states wins the presidency. Every vote would be equal in presidential elections, regardless of where you live. This would increase voter turnout, while promoting fairness and equality.





I await your questions :D

Debate Round No. 1
Dancerchick

Con

My questions:

  • Wouldn't you agree that having your voice heard through the senate would make your vote less chaotic and more balanced?
  • Don't you want balance between large and small states?
  • Wouldn't you want recounts confined to a few states and not the whole country?
  • Where would the justification be in spending over 2 billion dollars per candidate just for campaigning?
  • Electoral vote provides organization, wouldn't you agree that order is needed for everything?
  • Electoral vote allows smaller states with a smaller population to have an equal pull to a larger state. Does popular vote allow this or any kind of balance?



I await your questions and answers. :)

vmpire321

Pro

:D I thank CON for her quick response.

CON asks "Wouldn't you agree that having your voice heard through the senate would make your vote less chaotic and more balanced?"
1) Not necessarily... Senators don't always fully represent what you want, but rather what they believe you want. In the electoral college, its a winner-take-all system. This means that if you are a part of the minority in a state (ex. Democrat in a Republican state), your vote won't count towards anything, as all of the Electoral Votes goes to whoever wins in that state. Your voice wouldn't be heard.
2) I fail to see how, in any way, would a vote be "chaotic" or "unbalanced". Your vote is your vote....There aren't many characteristics to a vote.

Con says "Don't you want balance between large and small states?"
1) Don't you want candidates to campaign in all states, instead of the few closely divided ones? A handful of closely divided battleground states get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates.

She writes "Wouldn't you want recounts confined to a few states and not the whole country?"
1) Computerized voting systems are operational.
2) With the newer, fully computerized voting systems, including optical scan and direct recording electronic systems, the vote totals may be transmitted automatically to the central counting facility.
3) Recounts shouldn't stop are government from doing its job.

Con says "Where would the justification be in spending over 2 billion dollars per candidate just for campaigning?"
1) She presents no evidence for this "2 billion" figure.
2) Spending limits exist to make sure rich candidates don't have an advantage over poorer candidates. http://www.fec.gov...
If everyone has the same budget per state, everyone would be at the same disadvantage. Now if everyone was at the same 'disadvantage', it wouldn't truly be a 'disadvantage'. http://dictionary.reference.com...


Con says "Electoral vote provides organization, wouldn't you agree that order is needed for everything?"
1) She doesn't explain how the Electoral College provides any 'organization' or why it's true.
2) Sure, order is ideal, but wouldn't a popular vote system have 'order' too?

Con says "Electoral vote allows smaller states with a smaller population to have an equal pull to a larger state. Does popular vote allow this or any kind of balance?"
1) Through Electoral Vote, the minorities in any state won't have any voice in who becomes president. Why? Because no matter who they vote for, all of the electoral votes will still go to the majority's choice. This decreases and discourages voters.
2) In popular vote, I don't see how any boundaries will be drawn between states. A democrat vote in a Republican state will have the exact same affect as a democrat vote in a Democrat state. All votes would be equal, and no one would be discouraged.
3) Everyone will have the power or ability to decide an outcome through popular vote. One of the definitions of balance is the power or ability to decide an outcome by throwing one's strength, influence, support, or the like, to one side or the other. Needless to say, popular vote can allow the existence of 'balance'. http://dictionary.reference.com...

==Questions==
  • If constantly, the majority of America pushes for a popular vote system, why should the government continue to ignore them?
  • Why should our voting system discriminate against candidates who have a broad-based support?
  • Popular vote would encourage more voters, as everyone's vote will have the same affect and importance. Does the electoral college present the same benefit?
  • Through the electoral college, the majority can actually be ignored. A candidate could lose popular vote, but yet be elected president through key states. Wouldn't a popular vote system better represent the interests of America?
  • Candidates often only campaign in battleground states, where the support is still divided somewhat evenly. States that they are winning tremendously or losing too much will be ignored by candidates and forgotten. Why would this be fair and equal, or even justifiable?


I await your response! :D


Debate Round No. 2
Dancerchick

Con

Dancerchick forfeited this round.
vmpire321

Pro

Hmm. Even though my opponent has forfeited, I shall still go ahead and form a rebuttals agaisnt her case...

==Rebuttals==

CON says "Electoral vote enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all of that states electoral votes or none of that states electoral votes."

1) Consider this situation.
...A) There are, say, 1 billion people in a state "x".
...B) 499 million people are democrats, while 501 million people are republicans.
...C) In the current electoral system, all of a state's electoral votes go towards one candidate. It's an all-or-nothing system.
...D) The voices and opinions of 499 million people are ignored, due to this system.
CON claims that the electoral college helps out minorities, but I fail to see how the minority party's voice is being heard.

CON says "The founders intent was to filter the vote so in case of regional antagonism their is a reasonable solution. "

1) Situations change over time. America isn't the same as it was 200 years ago.
2) The founders weren't always correct, just like other leaders of America.

CON says "Electoral vote does a better job representing the country as a whole. Since we have different leaders for each state, some of the larger states could over power others votes. Electoral vote provides balance to this. Smaller States Equal Say."

1) Electoral vote discourages the minority voters, worsening the representation of the entire country.
2)
...A) CON states that we have different representives for each state...(Which is true)
...B) CON then says that the larger state would over power others.
I don't understand CON's logic here. There is no connection between what CON said.

CON says "Recounts are confined to a few states. It avoids recount of the entire nation. If we had to recount through the entire nation, the chances of fraud would go up tremendously. An across the nation recount might be REQUIRED if we had direct popular vote if the president."

1) I've stated why recounts aren't that hard. A lot of voting is done electronically.
2) How would fraud occur?

CON says "In direct election of the president people might stuff the ballots.... We are not all angles in this world. There is bad people out there."

1) Electronic voting prevents this.
2) The same could be said about the electoral college.

CON says " it allows small states and small towns to have a say in the election. It allows smaller states with a smaller population, have an equal pull to a larger state. The candidates go to every corner of the battle ground states, so people get to meet and question them, "I'm originally from a small state and I think this is one of the major benefits of the electoral collage." Says David Leip.

1) CON even admits that cantidates spend a tremendous amount of time on battle ground states. This simply supports my point about how cantidates often ignore states that they are winning tremendously or losing badly. Sure, some people would like the attention, but would the ignored like it?
2) Popular vote forces cantidates to spread out their campaigning, as every vote counts.

CON says "It lowers campaign costs. If politicians did have to campaign equally in every state just so they could get every vote, it would substantially raise the coasts of campaigns. Campaigning like that would cost over 2 BILLION dollars."
1) Spending limits are put on cantidates. http://www.fec.gov...) If everyone is at the same disadvantage, it would no longer be a 'disadvantage'.
3) No evidence is given for the number of 2 billion.

==Voters==

1. Conduct -
a) I deserve it due to CON's forfeit.

2. Spelling and Grammar -
a)Some of CON's mistakes: "The founders intent was to filter the vote so in case of regional antagonism their is a reasonable solution. " (ROUND 1 CONTENTION 2)
...and...
" Electoral vote provides balance to this. Smaller States Equal Say." (ROUND 1 CONTENTION 3)
Grammar issues are apparent in the examples I have given.

3) Convincing Arguments -
a) I've answered all of CON's questions and responded to her case.
b) She didn't answer any of my questions, and she did not respond to my case.

4)Reliable Sources -
a) I've used plenty of sources.
b) She hasn't used any sources.



=======
VOTE PRO :D!
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
hmm. Sorry to hear about that :'(
Posted by Dancerchick 5 years ago
Dancerchick
Oh and sorry I had to forfeit......... My mom died so yeah. sorry i blew up on yall I'm so lost without her.

R.I.P- Jennifer/ Mommy

p.s- yes i still call her mommy... like i said let kids be kids!
Posted by Dancerchick 5 years ago
Dancerchick
it was inactive because i was tired about hearing comments about my font.... you know what I am a kid... let kids be kids!!!!!!!!! I DID NOT HAVE BAD SPELLING AND GRAMMAR!! AND I WON THIS DEBATE AT SCHOOL SO YEAH! GEEZ I'M SICK AND TIRED OF YOU PEOPLE!
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
Interesting. I wonder why.
Oh well. I suppose you win. You were Owning Face anyway =)
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Dancerchick's account is no longer active...
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
lol.. That font is so annoying >.<
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
Wow, there are a lot of comments about Comic Sans. I didn't realize just how many people hate that font >_<
Posted by maninorange 5 years ago
maninorange
@Crayzman2297:
Amusingly enough, the only reason I clicked on this debate was to make a sarcastic comment about how he deserves to lose conduct for using Comic Sans.
Posted by Crayzman2297 5 years ago
Crayzman2297
Con is losing points for spelling and grammar...... and Comic Sans.
Posted by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
Hmm. How long ago would that be? >.<
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ron-Paul
Dancerchickvmpire321Tied
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 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: Forfeit and bad arguments for con.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Dancerchickvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I totally disagreed with Pro's position, but he had better arguments. Conduct on Con for the FF.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Dancerchickvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although dancer chick could have won, and pros arguments where actually false, pro won because of the FF and he actually refuted stuff.
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
Dancerchickvmpire321Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro would have won anyway. I like how Con had 7 contentions, without any compelling ones...