The Instigator
Kwhite7298
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TN05
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
TN05
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/4/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,379 times Debate No: 33285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

Kwhite7298

Pro

-_-_->>Policy Debate<<-_-_-

Please, if you are unfamiliar with this style, DO NOT accept this debate. PLEASE!
If you're interested in learning:
http://en.wikipedia.org......


Definitions:

Electoral College:
a body of electors; especially : one that elects the president and vice president of the United States

Abolished: to end the observance or effect of

Should: Ought to



About this debate:
Time limit: 72 hours
Character limit: 8,000 characters
Rounds: 5 split up as follows:


Round 1:
pro: acceptance and definitions

con: acceptance and definitions

Round 2:
pro: 1AC

(possible CX either in comments or email)
con: 1NC
(possible CX either in comments or email)

Round 3:
pro: 2AC

(possible CX)
con: 2NC
(possible CX)

Round 4:
pro: 1AR

con: 1NR

Round 5:
pro: 2AR

con: 2NR

During the fourth round, only attack arguments made in round 2.
During the fifth round, only attack arguments made in round 3.

No rebuttals may be done during rounds 2/3 outside of CX.

BoP is on aff.
TN05

Con

I agree to all definitions and structure.
Debate Round No. 1
Kwhite7298

Pro

Kwhite7298 forfeited this round.
TN05

Con

OK, really?
Debate Round No. 2
Kwhite7298

Pro

Please read the comments before voting. Thank you.

My text is bold, my opponent's is not.
--
Plan: The Electoral College should remain in effect. That means the system which awards a certain number of electors to each state, with each state casting its electors for one presidential candidate and one vice presidential candidate.


Reason 1: It represents America's unique political system.
America is a a republic, not a democracy, and that America is fundamentally a nation of states, not a nation divided into provinces. The Electoral College represents both.
Unique political systems are not what make a country survive. Soviet Russian communism was a unique political system. The European Union is a unique political system. One has failed, the other is failing. America is a democracy just as much as it is a republic. Senator and house of rep votes are democratic.
Reason 2: Third parties are actually relevant.
Unlike in a popular vote system - where third parties rarely win anything, let along place highly - the Electoral College allows third parties to play a crucial role and bring issues to the forefront of public awareness.
Third parties have not won a single electoral vote, ever. Therefore, they are irrelevant under the current system.
Reason 3: It requires candidates to campaign nationwide rather than in their zones of support
To have a shot to win, candidates must not just campaign in urban areas, they must campaign across the entire nation. Without the electoral college, smaller states would be ignored entirely.
Candidates now are campaigning in small states whereas urban populations are a larger sample and therefore would represent the population better.
Reason 4: It moderates candidates
Rather than just having to appeal to their base, candidates must appeal to all voters and present a more moderate image.
Candidates would need to be more moderate under a popular vote system because they must appear to outshine multiple candidates instead of just one. The electoral college encourages radicalization because there are only two relevant parties.
Reason 5: It can be adapted easily in the event of the death of a candidate
If a winning candidate dies in the popular vote, there would have to be another election. Under the Electoral College, electors could preserve the continuity of government by selecting another person such as the VP.
The electoral college is not in charge of the order of succession. The order of succession is defined in the Constitution.
Reason 6: The Electoral College is far more flexible than popular vote
The Electoral College can be adopted to almost anything - including popular vote.
The first step would be abolishing the electoral college as it is now.

--
Rebuttals: Neg Contentions

My opponent contends that popular vote was not a priority during the first years of America as a nation and therefore deems it less relevant than an electoral vote that we have today but fails to realize that, under the same logic, women and non-white men do not deserve to vote, freedom of speech should be lost, and a poll tax would be brought back. This point is irrelevant.

My opponent contends that candidates would focus on urban areas however fails to realize that candidates now are focusing on swing states with less population and less diversity than urban areas which provide a less accurate voice of the country than the positive urban areas that my opponent contends candidates would focus on.

My opponent contends that third party candidates receive better representation under the electoral college but fails to recognize that third party candidates have never won electoral votes.

My opponent contends that the electoral college discourages extremism but fails to realize that it actually encourages extremism. Candidates have the support of their party and need not directly outshine the other candidates because the other candidate has different views.

My opponent contends that the EC can be changed to a popular vote however fails to realize that the EC now is not a popular vote system and that is directly what the pro is advocating. This point should be given to the pro.

--
2AC

Contention 5: The Electoral College decreases the quality of candidates

Since candidates are now competing against anyone, not just the other party, there are fewer differences between the views of candidates. Therefore, candidates work harder to outshine each other. With many choices, competition is increased. This increased competition along with harder-working candidates leads to more productive candidates and a more productive society.

Contention 6: The Electoral College sends negative views of the U.S. overseas

America is a symbol of freedom and representation. Foreigners look to America as a free country where everyone's ideas are represented. Essentially, America is a symbol of paradise for some, but for others, it is lies. Our "representation" is nothing because of the corruption. The Electoral College is part of the reason that America receives negative stereotypes overseas.

Contention 7: The Electoral College puts too much stress on campaigning

The Electoral College system in place now forces candidates to spend large portions of their terms campaigning for the next one.

For these regions I strongly urge a PRO ballot.
TN05

Con

Responding to opponent's main contentions first, then contentions, than newest arguments:

1. Voters are informed nowadays.
I have already explained how popular vote had little role in Presidential elections in my opening arguments, so I direct you all back to that. I believe that entirely refutes this argument.

2a. Lack of emphasis on 'power states'
The large states are represented - they have the most electoral votes. California, which houses 11.91% of the population of the United States[1], has 55 electoral votes[2], or 12.6% of the 435 electoral votes. Texas, which has 8.04% of the US population[1], has 38 electoral votes[2]. or 8.7% of the electoral vote. New York, which has 6.19% of the US population[1], has 29 electoral votes, 6.6% of all electoral votes.[2] Florida has 6.01% of the US population[1], and the same number of electoral votes as New York.[2] The main issue with all these states except Florida, a swing state, is that local politics heavily favor one party (the Democrats in California and New York and the GOP in Texas). Popular vote would not change local politics.

2b. More emphasis on swing states
America is basically split between Democratic and Republican, so it is natural the hardest states to win are the ones that are nearly equally split between the two parties. These states represent the attitude of America far more than the big non-swing states.

2c. Third parties
Gary Johnson won less than 1% of the vote and failed to gain over 3% of the vote in any state except New Mexico, where he had served as governor.[3] For all intensive purposes, he was a minor candidate and would not have gotten any more attention under popular vote.

3a. 15th amendment
This argument confuses me. First off, a candidate needs only a plurality of the vote to win a statewide election in msot states, and in all of them at the national level. The 15th amendment does not make government have to be proportional to the population (which would be pretty damn near impossible if you ask me).

4. The electoral college allows room for corruption
I'm not sure how this is an issue. There have been only about 150 faithless electors, and about half of them were due to the death of a candidate. None of the other votes swung an election.[5] The popular vote arguably allows for more corruption - for example, the Democratic candidate in 1876 won the popular vote due in large part due to the supression of black voters and white Republicans in the South.[4]

I do not wish to present any new contentions in this round, as I will be spending a good amount of effort cross-examining Pro in the comments. As no CX rules have been made, I propose the following:
1. CX may consist of one (1) post in the comments section per round, clearly marked as 'CX for Round Y', with Y being the round number in which the CX is for. The CX may only be related to arguments in the prior round. The CX post may address factual inaccuracies and question the opponent on his assertation. The CX may be responded to by the opponent.

References:
1.http://en.wikipedia.org...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
5.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Kwhite7298

Pro

Plan:

My opponent contends that: (my text has --text)

the EC should be kept because it represents America's unique political system.

--If a successful government survived on being unique, we would all be communists.

Third parties are relevant under the EC

--Third parties are not relevant, having won less than 3% of votes in both elections my opponent cited.

The EC requires candidates to campaign as a whole.

--The EC requires candidates to focus on swing states, as we saw in the 2012 election.

The EC can be changed easily

--Popular vote can be as well



My opponent has failed to prove that his counter-plan is superior to mine, whereas I have proven that my plan is superior for the following reasons:

--Better representation of minorities

--The EC skews the ideas of the populus and electoral system

--The EC violates the principles of equality seen in the 15th amendment

--The EC allows room for corruption

------------------------------------

Furthermore,
Today's resolution should be affirmed for the following reasons:

-Voters are more informed eliminating the original purpose of the EC

-The EC distorts the principles of American representation

-The EC is hypocritical regarding the morals set forth in "equal protection" amendments such as the 15th.

-The EC allows room for corruption (which my opponent stated was "not an issue")

Summary:
READ ALL COMMENTS BEFORE VOTING, AND WHEN YOU VOTE,


VOTE PRO!
TN05

Con

I'll begin with a response to my opponent's CX in the comments. His text is in bold, while mine is not:

In response to me disproving my opponent's comment that no third party has ever won electoral votes, my opponent says the following:

While it is true that third parties have won electoral votes, these votes do not matter. Take, for example, the 1856 election my opponent cited. 21.6% of popular votes went to third party candidate Millard Fillmore, yet he only won 8 of 296 electoral votes -- about 2.7% [1] This is not a significant number compared to the massive 174 and 114 votes his opponents won.

The 1912 election was an exception -- the voters should know that. The third party candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, who already had the backing of the GOP. He ran under his own party after being refused the nomination for the GOP, and took support with him. Essentially, for that election, the Progressive Party was the GOP. The GOP was a third party in that election, and only received 8 electoral votes, versus the 23.2% of popular votes. [2]

George Washington is a poor example because the voters at the time were not informed enough to vote fairly, only on what they knew -- they were free because of him.

First off, who is to say the votes do not matter? The votes were able to draw the election away from the Republican candidate and towards the Democrat, who won with 45% of the vote.[1] Second, the result of 1912 was due to a split in the GOP vote - Woodrow Wilson won the election with 41% of the vote, and the GOP/Progressive vote combined for 51% of the vote.[2] This reinforces my previous point that the electoral college can and will punish candidates who refuse to reognize third party support. As to the last, I have already disproven the notion that voters were uninformed (they were rich property-owning white folk, who had access to education) and that voting was actually important (only about 1.3% of the population voted in the 1788 election,[3] and about 0.5% of the population voted in 1792 - Washington's two elections.[4])

My opponent contends that a candidates death has nothing to do with succession. Order of succession is defined as "the ascension to power by one ruler, official, or monarch after the death, resignation, or removal from office of another, usually in a clearly defined order." Is that not what we have in the United States?[3]

My argument has nothing to do with officials who are in office - it has to do with the Electoral College being able to adopt to the death of a candidate who is due votes. For example - let's say Barack Obama died before the Electoral College met. The Electoral College could have adjusted accordingly.

I do not have any new arguments to make, but I will be doing a CX of this round in the comments.


References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Kwhite7298

Pro

Bold is my opponent's text:

CX for Round 4:

How is the communist system unique? It functions just like every other dictatorship - you have the dictator (or Communist Party leadership) at the top, and you have to obey them. Functionally, this is not unique. Our system is unique in that we are not a nation unilaterally divided into unimportant provinces, but rather a nation of states.

The communist system is unique in the same way that the republic government is unique. Rome ran with the same ideals of a republic. The Romans voted for their electors who voted for those above them.

Lack of third party participation has little to do with the electoral college, it has to do with the two-party system. Third parties are barely relevant at the state levels either, and they run with the popular-vote system. Out of the 50 governors, only 1 - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - is an independent.

I agree that lack of third party participation is a symptom of the two-party system, and I contend that the two-party system is encouraged in the electoral college to the point where third parties do not receive fair representation. Gubernatorial campaigns are not on the scale of presidential campaigns, therefore, there is far less representation of third parties. States are not an accurate measure.

In response to the idea of the popular vote being flexible - no it can't. Popular vote, by definition has basically two options - you either can win with a plurality of the vote, or you have to get a majority of the vote. Further, to adopt the popular vote you would have to make a consistutitonal amendement and pass it, which is very obviously difficult to do (it is hard to get three-fourths of the states, let alone two-thirds of Congress, to agree on anything). The electoral college can be changed easily and in a grassroots way.

I don't believe I said that the popular vote system was flexible -- I said that the switch from an electoral system to a popular system would be an easy, flexible move. It seems as if the EC has this same two-fold option that the popular vote has -- blue or red. 63% of Americans are in favor of removing the electoral college, and this support has always been high, even back in 1968 80% of Americans favored removing it. The 'abolish the EC' is not as new as my opponent claims it is. [1]

[1] - http://www.gallup.com...;

---

Since this is my final rebuttal, this will discuss arguments made in round 3 and round 3 only.
My opponent has not addressed the following contentions in any of his speeches and/or cross-examinations:

--

Contention 5: The Electoral College decreases the quality of candidates

Since candidates are now competing against anyone, not just the other party, there are fewer differences between the views of candidates. Therefore, candidates work harder to outshine each other. With many choices, competition is increased. This increased competition along with harder-working candidates leads to more productive candidates and a more productive society.

Contention 6: The Electoral College sends negative views of the U.S. overseas

America is a symbol of freedom and representation. Foreigners look to America as a free country where everyone's ideas are represented. Essentially, America is a symbol of paradise for some, but for others, it is lies. Our "representation" is nothing because of the corruption. The Electoral College is part of the reason that America receives negative stereotypes overseas.

Contention 7: The Electoral College puts too much stress on campaigning

The Electoral College system in place now forces candidates to spend large portions of their terms campaigning for the next one.

--

Please consider those won in the favor of the affirmation.

Since my opponent has not presented any new contentions in Round 3, I really have nothing left to say here.


Note to voters:
Before voting, please read ALL comments and ALL speeches. The comments contain not only the speeches from Round 2 but the cross-examinations between the two debaters.



I would like to congratulate my opponent on a fantastic, fun debate, and hope that we can run another some time!



Finally,

Vote PRO!






P.S. If my opponent would agree, perhaps the voters can put the S&G category for whoever had the better CX? I thought S&G was pretty even throughout the rounds, and hopefully my opponent would agree.
TN05

Con

First and foremost I wish to thank my opponent for an excellent debate. This is the first really serious debate with a serious opponent I have had, and it was very fun to boot - I think my opponent's idea of offering S&G to who had the best CX is a good idea, considering the grammar was very even. I would like any potential voters to grant the S&G points to who had the best CX, per the mutual agreement of both sides. With formalities and mutual agreement out of the way, I will proceed into thethe final portion of the debate.

I will not respond to my opponent's response to my CX, as that would violate mutually-agreed upon standards. Please do not regard my lack of response to them as ceding the argument - rather, judge it according to whose argument was better.

I disagree on me ceding round 3 points - I believe CX is only to be used to correct factual inaccuracies or to clarify an earlier position on an argument. The rules of this debate clearly state that rebuttal of round 3 arguments - of which each of those points my opponent notes belongs to. I will respond to each of them here, as I am allowed to do under the terms of the debate. My opponent's text shall be in bold font, while mine shall be in unbolded font.

Contention 5: The Electoral College decreases the quality of candidates

Since candidates are now competing against anyone, not just the other party, there are fewer differences between the views of candidates. Therefore, candidates work harder to outshine each other. With many choices, competition is increased. This increased competition along with harder-working candidates leads to more productive candidates and a more productive society.

I agree that the quality of candidates is important, but I disagree that the electoral college is the root of the problem. One of the many reasons our political system has issues is the lack of participation in primaries. To give an example - my state, the great state of North Carolina, only 35% of registered voters participated in the 2012 primary as opposed to the 68% who voted in the general election. Thes numbers rank only two percentage points higher in 2008, when there was actually a competitive Democratic primary and a landslide vitcoty.[1] With such low turnout, a minority of voters can swing an election. If more people voted in primaries, the will of the people would be better represented.

Contention 6: The Electoral College sends negative views of the U.S. overseas

America is a symbol of freedom and representation. Foreigners look to America as a free country where everyone's ideas are represented. Essentially, America is a symbol of paradise for some, but for others, it is lies. Our "representation" is nothing because of the corruption. The Electoral College is part of the reason that America receives negative stereotypes overseas.

I would ask my opponent to prove this factually, but he cannot respond because he has had a closing argument so to do so would be unfair. Rather, I would ask how countries would view something that has gotten virtually every election 'right' in terms of popular vote would be the root of anti-Americanism. There are many other issues people have with us, but a lack of freedom isn't normally one of them.

Contention 7: The Electoral College puts too much stress on campaigning

The Electoral College system in place now forces candidates to spend large portions of their terms campaigning for the next one.

Lengthy campaign cycles are, unfortunately, a fact of American politics. I believe this is due more to term length than anything - for example, this issue is much worse in the House of Representatives, where there are only two-year terms. To give an example, Mia Love, a Republican who barely lost to Democrat Jim Matheson in the 2012 race for Utah's 4th congressional district, has already pledged to run again in 2014.[2] To put it even more simply, there are several states where the governor only has a two-year term. The President has it pretty good compared to them.

With that out of the way, I will note the few issues my opponent did not respond directly to. These are mostly minor, and my opponent may have opposed the broader theme, but take it as you will:
*America is fundamentally a nation of states.
*The Electoral College can be de facto transitioned to a popular vote system and back, through means like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
*Elections in America are not nessecarily decided by majority vote (ie. 50% + 1 vote), but by plurality (ie. the candidate with the most votes wins).
*The 'power states' of California, New York, Texas, and Florida are awarded a proportional amount of electoral votes when compared to population size.
*The popular vote in the 1876 presidential election was swung due to rampant voter supression from the Democratic side.

Now, to my closing statement:

Ladies and gentlemen of DDO, this debate presented an important issue - the future of the Electoral College, the system by which the President of the United States is elected. My opponent took the affirmative side, arguing the Electoral College should be abolished. I took the contradictory side, arguing the Electoral College. My opponent took the burden of proof, meaning he has to prove that the Electoral College needs to be abolished. While he presented some compelling points, such as the possibility of a result contradictory to the popular vote, I believe my arguments have, at the very least, proven the case is not clear-cut.

My argument rested on severald key points: that America is fundamentally a nation of states and the Electoral College acknowledges this, that it requires candidates to campaign nationwide and moderate their stances, that third parties can and do impact elections, and that it can be adapted to the will of the states (and the people of them). As the debate went on, I introduced more points - that the swing states represent the views of the average American far more effectively than urban voters in New York or ranchers in Texas, but also that those same voters are given an appropriate amount of power. I also noted that most elections in the US do not go by majority rule, but by plurality rule - in other words, less than a majority of voters can decide elections.

With that in mind, I urge all voters to cast their vote with BoP in mind. My opponent has a steep burden of proof - one he willingly gave himself. Each side made good arguments, but if Pro failed to prove his case, the debate should go towards Con. Thank you all for you time.

References:
1. http://www.ncsbe.gov...
2. http://www.standard.net...
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
If you come up with a resolution, invite me and we can do this again but with a longer voting period :D
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
That is truly a shame, I would have liked a broader consensus. The voting period should probably have been set longer than three days - I like to have a month-long period, but that's just me.
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
....awww....no real votes on this.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
CX for Round 4:
How is the communist system unique? It functions just like every other dictatorship - you have the dictator (or Communist Party leadership) at the top, and you have to obey them. Functionally, this is not unique. Our system is unique in that we are not a nation unilaterally divided into unimportant provinces, but rather a nation of states.

Lack of third party participation has little to do with the electoral college, it has to do with the two-party system. Third parties are barely relevant at the state levels either, and they run with the popular-vote system. Out of the 50 governors, only 1 - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island - is an independent.

In response to the idea of the popular vote being flexible - no it can't. Popular vote, by definition has basically two options - you either can win with a plurality of the vote, or you have to get a majority of the vote. Further, to adopt the popular vote you would have to make a consistutitonal amendement and pass it, which is very obviously difficult to do (it is hard to get three-fourths of the states, let alone two-thirds of Congress, to agree on anything). The electoral college can be changed easily and in a grassroots way.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
I'm assuming responding to a CX response is not appropriate - any response to my opponent's CX of my CX of him will be in my next round of debate, and I expect the same in turn.

Response to Kwhite CX for Round 3:
2a - I am not sure what you are responding to. My argument - that the electoral college gives an appropriate number of electoral votes (and thus impact) to each 'big state' in sound and supported by facts. The 'local politics' bit is simply explaining why each one of those states, with the exception of Florida, leans heavily towards one side - that the politics of that state are heavily liberal (New York, California) or heavily conservative (Texas). Popular vote cannot change that and make these states more competitive.
2b. Does every American live in a 'big state' or urban area?
3a. There is no 'majority rule' in America; you only need a plurality to win, which means a candidate can be elected with less than 50% +1 of the vote. My opponent does not address the fact that we he is arguing does not make sense - barring requiring representatives to be proportional to the US demographic (which is impossible), perfectly proportional representation is not possible.
4. There is no corruption at the electoral college level. As explained before - faithless electors have never had any impact on elections. Ever. The only election where there were a large number of them was the one where a candidate, due to receive electoral votes, died. That accounts for about half of the 150 or so faithless votes. The others disproportionately occurred in the 19th century - since the start of the 20th century, there have been all of NINE faithless votes. Let me repeat - NINE faithless votes.[1] Using the math, that is 0.03 faithless electors for each of the last twenty-nine Presidential elections. My opponent has not responded to the solid proof that voter suppression has and does swing the popular vote.

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by Kwhite7298 3 years ago
Kwhite7298
Response to TN05's CX:

While it is true that third parties have won electoral votes, these votes do not matter. Take, for example, the 1856 election my opponent cited. 21.6% of popular votes went to third party candidate Millard Fillmore, yet he only won 8 of 296 electoral votes -- about 2.7% [1] This is not a significant number compared to the massive 174 and 114 votes his opponents won.

The 1912 election was an exception -- the voters should know that. The third party candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, who already had the backing of the GOP. He ran under his own party after being refused the nomination for the GOP, and took support with him. Essentially, for that election, the Progressive Party was the GOP. The GOP was a third party in that election, and only received 8 electoral votes, versus the 23.2% of popular votes. [2]

My opponent contends that a candidates death has nothing to do with succession. Order of succession is defined as "the ascension to power by one ruler, official, or monarch after the death, resignation, or removal from office of another, usually in a clearly defined order." Is that not what we have in the United States?[3]

George Washington is a poor example because the voters at the time were not informed enough to vote fairly, only on what they knew -- they were free because of him.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...

CX for Round 3:

2a: My opponent contends that popular vote would not change local elections, but the EC refers to national elections, which a popular vote would change.

2b: Does every American live in Ohio or Florida?

2c: see previous

3a: If majority-rule is fair on a level where votes don't count, why have equal rights?

4: How is corruption on a national level "not an issue?"

(respond to my CX if you'd like, formatting is con
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
CX for Round 3:

My opponent asserts that no third party has ever won an electoral vote. This is not factually correct - in 7 elections since 1856, third parties have won electoral votes. In 1912, the Progressive Party won more votes than the GOP (27.4% as opposed to 23%) and won more electoral votes than the GOP (88 as opposed to 8).[1]

My opponent also asserts that succession has nothing to do with the Electoral College. My argument is not about succession, but the fact that the Electoral College is the only system capable of adjusting to the death of a candidate who is due to receive electoral votes. Further, independent candidate George Washington won the first two elections.[2]

Source:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Please read my argument from top to bottom. I appreciate my opponent's efforts to continue this interesting debate.

Plan: The Electoral College should remain in effect. That means the system which awards a certain number of electors to each state, with each state casting its electors for one presidential candidate and one vice presidential candidate.

Reason 1: It represents America's unique political system.
America is a a republic, not a democracy, and that America is fundamentally a nation of states, not a nation divided into provinces. The Electoral College represents both.

Reason 2: Third parties are actually relevant.
Unlike in a popular vote system - where third parties rarely win anything, let along place highly - the Electoral College allows third parties to play a crucial role and bring issues to the forefront of public awareness.

Reason 3: It requires candidates to campaign nationwide rather than in their zones of support
To have a shot to win, candidates must not just campaign in urban areas, they must campaign across the entire nation. Without the electoral college, smaller states would be ignored entirely.

Reason 4: It moderates candidates
Rather than just having to appeal to their base, candidates must appeal to all voters and present a more moderate image.

Reason 5: It can be adapted easily in the event of the death of a candidate
If a winning candidate dies in the popular vote, there would have to be another election. Under the Electoral College, electors could preserve the continuity of government by selecting another person such as the VP.

Reason 6: The Electoral College is far more flexible than popular vote
The Electoral College can be adopted to almost anything - including popular vote.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Contention 1: The Constitution provides the Electoral College to give states the power to decide the Presidency
America's status as a nation composed of soverign states is given away right in the name of our country - 'The United States of America'. The Founders envisioned the states deciding the Presidency, and it was not until much later - the 1832 presidential election, in fact - that all of the states (except for stubborn South Carolina) allocated their electors by popular vote.[1] Clearly, popular vote was not a priority in the first election, as four of the ten states in the first election had no popular vote. Additionally, it wasn't until 1850 that the popular vote applied to all adult male citizens.[3]

Contention 2: Candidates would only campaign in urban areas or bases of support without the Electoral College
Unlike in other countries, where political parties appeal to their base to swing elections, the Electoral College requires candidates to swing 'voters'. Candidates must campaign nationwide if they hope to win, and they cannot just appeal to urban areas or bases of support to win.

Contention 3: The Electoral College is much more helpful to third parties than popular vote
The Electoral College allows third parties not just to survive, but thrive. In 1992, Ross Perot won nearly 20 of the vote but no states. However, his appeal and success as a candidate was evident when both parties took up a balanced budget as a major goal - balancing the budget was a primary objective of the Perot candidacy. By the end of the decade, we had a balanced budget. Similarly, when Ralph Nader attracted nearly 3% of the vote in 2000, the Democrats realized their liberal base's power and nominated a liberal, John Kerry, in the next election. While they lost the election, they did manage to win the next one by appealing to many of those liberals, in addition to voters who were upset at the state of the country.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
Contention 4: It discourages extremism
Many of the blowout elections in US history have been against extremist candidates. When Lyndon Johnson won a landslide in 1964, it was due to the perceived extremism of Barry Goldwater. When Nixon won a landslide in 1972, it was due to the perceived extremism of George McGovern. When Reagan and Bush won landslides in 1984 and 1988, it was due to the perceived extremism of their opponents. Rather than allowing extremist movements to take root, the Electoral College requires candidates to moderate and appeal to all Americans - not just those in New York or Texas.

Contention 5: The Electoral College can be adopted into a popular vote, or back from it
Unlike other political systems, where massive changes take referendums and universal support, the Electoral College could easily be changed into a de facto popular vote system without having to replace it. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a major effort to change, and has gotten support from many liberal states. This flexibility is an inherent advantage unique to the American system.

To conclude - the Electoral College should remain because it offers unique advantages the popular vote does not.

References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://www.infoplease.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by welsh12 3 years ago
welsh12
Kwhite7298TN05Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB from debateragent