Resolved- Direct popular votes should replace electoral votes.
My first and only contention is that the Electoral College only takes the ideas of a few- not the public in general. "The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate." because I agree with the New York Times i agree that the electoral college has got to go. According to a 2012 poll, 23 out of the 50 states are leaning toward democratic or republican just by a 10% increase, which wastes many votes. "…every member must have an equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must be counted as equal."- Robert Dahl, editor of On Democracy. Since we have the Electoral College, not everyone's vote is considered equal. For states such as Texas who usually automatically lean towards the republican side since 1976, democrats in Texas will basically have no voice. With this, I urge you to vote a pro ballad.
This round I get the impression is only for opening arguments based on round one therefore I shall proceed.
The case for the Electoral College is, actually, a very simple task indeed. Although there are many parts to the Electoral College, many of them will arrive when I rebut, I will focus on a few factors:
(1)Its impossible to get rid of the college
(2)It better represents the states
(3)Forces candidates to appeal to more then larger states
As we can see, (1) is a more neutral argument saying it is unlikely we can get this change. (2) Is a benefit of the system. And (3) are a downside of the national vote and a benefit of the electoral system.
It is impossible to get rid of the Electoral College
The procedure of elections and how to select the president is outlined in article II in the constitution. Each state has at least 3 electors, the two in the senate and one or more from the house. What this does it make each state worth more in an election and fulfilling the founder’s belief in a fair election. The EU has the same process where the countries, not the people, decide the election. As in our process, the states not the people select the president. That is what the constitution said. And this cripples the case for the proponents of National Vote as the states are supposed to choose a president, and not the “majority” .
With this out of the way, we see the Electoral College is clearly written in the constitution. Although we have a more differed version from it, the overall concept is in the constitution. Now, there are two options that would be needed to change the system. One being we add too the constitution, the other we repeal the section. This both make a case it would be impossible to change the law, as ¾ of the legislators would have to ratify the change. It is unlikely the states would do this as; most states are small states that hugely favor the current system over direct votes .
As we can see, a move to change the system is impossible as all small states favor the EC as tic better represents them. This brings us to our next point.
It better represents the states
Although the EC does not represent the large states by large margins, it does indeed give them still a lead in importance. However the Electoral College helps the states that would be worthless in elections if direct vote where put into action. The Electoral College actually enhances minority groups.
The Electoral College gives more of a voice to smaller states. Now the question here is what are the benefits? Firstly, the larger states still play a larger role in deciding the election, but the EC makes it so that the smaller states, although less deciding, still play a larger role. It forces these states to play a huge role when added together so it’s important that these states are won. However, under national vote the small states would be worth nothing and mean only the northeast, the west coast, and Texas would matter. In a close race Florida would be handy too. Therefore the EC increases small state representation . This brings me to my next point.
The EC forces candidates to appeal to the whole map
Unlike liberal democracies, where only the large states matter, the electoral college as stated increases the value of small states and therefore increases their importance. If small states are important, it is more likely the candidate will not only campaign in Texas but will look into Wyoming and New Mexico for the extra support. As Frank Monalando notes, “The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states. If presidents appeared to be solely regional candidates, it would tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the country. Given the current Electoral College, no person could become president without both the support of a substantial portion of the population and broad support over different regions of the country.
The Bush-Gore presidential election was incredibly close. Whoever would have ultimately been the victor, would have had popular appeal over a broad number of states. If the election had been based only on the popular vote, both would have engaged in a different campaign strategy. Bush would have concentrated his efforts in Texas and some populace midwestern states where he might have accumulated even larger majorities. Likewise, Gore would have focused in the Northeast trying to generate enough votes to offset Bush's advantages elsewhere. Bush would have had to tack further to the right of the political spectrum, while Gore would have fled to the left. Both candidates would have had less incentive to appeal to the middle.”
In other words, in direct vote population matters more, obviously. So the only states what would get attention would be small elite areas and the overall united states would be run by few states who would pass their agendas easily. Basically the national vote would create an elite of large states that would rule the national stage and ignore the smaller states need. But somehow people think the national vote is “fair”… Anyway, it means not only must politicians be nice to large population centers; they also have to appeal to a few farmers and the people that fund the economy to win elections. This means the small states needs get accounted for, the large states still hold a large presence, and then yay. No one is hugely under represented.
So it makes the election system more fair and less bias to large states.
I have proven a few things, first its impossible to change the system. Therefore trying is a moot. Secondly, the EC makes large states still more important but make small states of such significance that they are not ignored. And lastly I built upon the previous point and showed the national vote would, overall, hurt small states and cause a few elite states.
And a side bonus was Gore never became president and didn’t pass his eco agenda that would leave us in Chinas dust even more then we are now.
zezimaftw forfeited this round.
zezimaftw forfeited this round.
My opponents main point is that it hurts the majority. My position is: so what? It's not the people that elect the president, rather the states. The constitution supports this point. We only should change the system if it has some downfall legally. So I have two objections.
First, America is a republican form of democracy. Having a majority rule is not needed in our system, and never should be. A republic exists just too be an alternative too democracy. It was made so we are not abused by the mob. It exists to protect the rights of the minority, not the majority .
Second, states elect the president not the people. The constitution notes, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
It's not 51% of us choose, rather the electors choose. Vote Con.
zezimaftw forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|