The Instigator
anonynomous
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Yarely
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote

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 5 votes the winner is...
Yarely
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,578 times Debate No: 28787
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

anonynomous

Con

So this debate will be about the electoral college in the US. First round is acceptance 2-3rd rounds rebuttals and case fourth round conclusion with no new evidence.
Debate Round No. 1
anonynomous

Con

As the Beatles once said, "Let it be"Mother Mary comes to me." And because I want Mother Mary to come to me, we should let it be and negate the resolved: should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote. We offer one sole observation: PRO cannot win merely by showing flaws of electoral vote; rather, they must also display solvency. Contention one: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as "a subject terrific for political analysis"it is truly a gift that keeps on giving." He furthers that "the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching." This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including "clarifying citizens" understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens." Because the Electoral College uniquely creates this political discourse that provides all of the above benefits, it achieves political awareness and participation that would not be brought about by direct popular vote. Contention two: The Electoral College protects against fraud. Sub-point A: Majority fraud. According to Richard Darlington of Cornell University, "Majority fraud is when a majority within a state makes its majority look bigger than it really is, as when they stretch their candidate's vote from 60% to 70%"In an electoral college system, majority fraud conveys no advantage at all"Thus under an electoral college system the easiest type of fraud is totally useless." In short, under the Electoral College, no matter how big the margin of victory is, the winning candidate will win the same number of electoral votes. However, the Heritage Foundation"s Tara Ross explains "direct popular vote would increase the incentive for fraud" because "any stolen vote would have at least some effect." The impact is that the Electoral College safeguards against this fraud while direct popular vote does not. Sub-point B: Minority fraud. Darlington continues on to state that "minority fraud is when the minority manages to fraudulently gather enough additional votes to make itself look like a majority." He explains that when this happens in an electoral college, the effects of minority fraud are restricted to the state in which it happened alone. On the other hand, minority fraud in a popular election would involve the entire nation. The impact we bring you is that direct popular vote is much more conducive to fraud than the Electoral College; thus, the Electoral College should be preferred. Sub-point C: Recounts

CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in"all states where any ballots could be contested." Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required." Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. Contention three: The Electoral College prevents polarization. Sub-point A: Big cities. The implementation of direct popular vote would mean a focus on large cities. Darshan Goux of the University of California Berkeley explains that with popular vote, "resources, principally time and money, would remain limited "" in fact, even more so given the vastly expanded field of play." Andy Brehm of the Minneapolis Star Tribune furthers, "If attaining the most votes nationally were all that mattered, nominees would turn a deaf ear to the rural electorate"Major cities would be the sole battlegrounds in presidential elections." Direct popular vote would mean that candidates focus disproportionately on big cities, ignoring rural areas. This makes popular vote an intrinsically unjust system. Sub-point B: Swing states. John R. Wright of OSU conducted an empirical study demonstrating that certain states are swing states because they "closely approximate national trends." In other words, swing states reflect the beliefs of the entire nation. This is supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, or CPVI, a political tool that measures how politically polarized states are. The CPVI finds that swing states such as Ohio or Florida are in the political center. Thus, by campaigning in swing states, candidates are appealing to the political center of America. The impact is that this is clearly preferable to having big cities decide the election. For all of the aforementioned reasons, please vote Con.
Yarely

Pro

Con's Contention One: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy.

How completely false! If anything the Electoral College decreases deliberative democracy because it is set up in a way where people have less power than the Government in deciding who is president.

I don't understand how the Electoral College "encourages people to be more involved in the political process" if in the Electoral College, they have less power. Con provided no evidence to that statement. Con just placed quotes which could also be applied even more so to a National Vote since in a National Vote, the people would have more power.

The National Vote would increase deliberate democracy. The Electoral College prevents the country from a completely fair democracy. The Electoral College is set up in a way that the country would operate more as an Elitist Republic.

"National Popular Vote is a simple concept: whoever gets the most total votes of all cast throughout the United States—wins.

Now, you might assume that this will never come to pass, in part because it is so hard to amend the constitution and get rid of the Electoral College.

In fact, it turns out to be surprisingly easy. The kind of thing that would occur to a Silicon Valley pioneer—the computer scientist who among other inventions is credited with conceiving the scratch-off card (for lotteries and other contests).

Koza and his cohorts have come up with a brilliant solution to the disenfranchisement that the Electoral College represents. It doesn’t even require a constitutional amendment. Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint the state’s electors. So all it would take is for the legislatures of states representing a majority of electoral votes to pass laws binding their states to abide by the results of the national popular vote. That is, the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide would automatically be awarded all of the electoral votes from the consenting states. Once enough states–which, combined, control 270 electoral votes–sign on to this agreement, the Electoral College would, de facto, be overridden." http://whowhatwhy.com...

In short that just means that the state electors have to abide by the national popular vote. The state electors would grant all of the electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide.

This guarantees a fair popular vote.

Con's Contention Two: The Electoral College protects against fraud.

"National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies." http://en.wikipedia.org...

NPV would have much less chances of having a "close" election and recounts since with a national vote, there would be much larger pools of votes and fraud wouldn't affect the large pools as much.

Con's Contention Three: The Electoral College prevents polarization

"Supporters of the compact argue that under the current system, campaign focus – in terms of advertising spending, visits, and addressing of regional or state issues – is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states largely ignored. The maps to the right illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike." http://en.wikipedia.org...

So, in a nutshell, the Electoral College already polarizes.

A NPV would make it so that every vote count.

"Presidential campaigns ignore 41 states because electoral votes are currently awarded to the candidate who gets the most popular votes within each separate state. Candidates, therefore, ignore states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind." http://www.usnews.com...

In the Mitt Romney and Obama campaigns, they only focused on swing states, which are only nine states. That's about 80 % of Americans ignored.

How is that a "fair" system?

True that in a NPV bigger cities would be treated with more attention.

But there is a much larger population in those areas, which means more Americans.

The vote should put these people in importance because most Americans in the country are concentrated in large urban cities

That means that large urban areas are what determines the majority of the public's opinions.

In an NPV more states would be held in more importance because every vote counts.

It wouldn't be polarization of the presidents only focusing on swing states (Which is about only 20 % of the country)

Swing States do not conduct even half of the country's wishes. Just because they are at the "political center" doesn't mean that they represent America. That just means that they are politically moderate. What would be the most accurate reflection of what America wants is a popular vote!

"The members of National Popular Vote say the Electoral College has created a system in which Presidential candidates focus all their energy on winning votes in swing states. Roe argued this doesn't only mean California voters, and voters in most other states, are ignored during elections. It has a real effect on national policy, and how a president does his job. Here's Roe's take, for instance, on the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.'President Obama didn't get boots on the ground, engaged, on the BP oil spill until oil washed ashore in Florida,' he said. 'Mississippi… Alabama? It was a tragedy, but it didn't warrant him being there. So, their policy making is driven by the Electoral College.'" http://www.kpbs.org...

"Another political scientist, UC San Diego professor Thad Kousser, isn't sure a national popular vote for president is a good idea. He fears that having to fight for votes in every state, and in the country's largest media markets, would cause an enormous increase in the cost of a presidential campaign. 'That would put a premium on who could earn the most money, and that might be bad for democracy in the long run,' said Kousser. Roe disagreed.

'I don't know how somebody argues that it is more important that we spend less money talking to voters in 10 states than spending more and talking to voters in 50 states,' said Roe." http://www.kpbs.org...

Swing states shouldn't decide the election
The Electoral College shouldn't decide the election
The PEOPLE should decide the election
The PEOPLE should decides who runs this country
The PEOPLE should count

Debate Round No. 2
anonynomous

Con

I would like to start by reminding the voters that demonstrating that the electoral college has flaws is not a reason to vote pro as my opponent is required to show the a national vote is preferable.
With that in mind I will be going over my opponent"s case/rebuttal and will do my best to refute her points.

Con's Contention One: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy.

How completely false! If anything the Electoral College decreases deliberative democracy because it is set up in a way where people have less power than the Government in deciding who is president.

I don't understand how the Electoral College "encourages people to be more involved in the political process" if in the Electoral College, they have less power. Con provided no evidence to that statement. Con just placed quotes which could also be applied even more so to a National Vote since in a National Vote, the people would have more power
There are two problems with this argument

1) My opponent fails to understand the definition of deliberative. DELIBERATIVE-Relating to or intended for consideration or discussion.[1] All she states is that the electoral college takes power away from the people, she doesn't address the fact the it encourages more informed voters. Therefore since my opponent doesn't address a single one of my points in my first contention you can extend all those arguments.

2) My opponent makes an unsubstantiated claim with no warrant or evidence. She simply makes the automatic assumption that a national vote is better and then uses this assumption to prove her point-clearly a case of circular logic.

Clarification- although she doesn't expressly label it as such I will be referring to her arguments about how easy it is to create a national vote as her first contention.

National Popular Vote is a simple concept: whoever gets the most total votes of all cast throughout the United States"wins. Now, you might assume that this will never come to pass, in part because it is so hard to amend the constitution and get rid of the Electoral College. In fact, it turns out to be surprisingly easy.

My opponent then goes on to give an in depth explanation about how to create a PV (popular vote) without an amendment. (Actually quite interesting I encourage readers to take a look at it)

Regardless this is wholly irrelevant to today's debate as my opponent is not required to show how a national vote if feasible only that it is preferable to the Electoral College.

Con's Contention Two: The Electoral College protects against fraud.

"National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies."

Again I would like to point out that my opponent drops almost my entire second contention addressing neither minority nor majority fraud and instead chooses to merely focus on only my third sub point so you can extend those arguments.

But even if you look to her rebuttal of my third sub point you see she takes it completely out of context. She straw man"s me and states that I argue that the Electoral College prevents close elections but that is completely inaccurate.

Impact c) Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close "legal battles over counting votes could erupt in "all states where any ballots could be contested." Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the Electoral College is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required." Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the Electoral College prevents dangerous delays in election results.

Clearly in arguing that in an event of a close election the Electoral College isolates the problem to a local level. Or makes recounts significantly easier. My opponent fails to address this so you can extend this as well.

Con's Contention Three: The Electoral College prevents polarization

"Supporters of the compact argue that under the current system, campaign focus " in terms of advertising spending, visits, and addressing of regional or state issues " is largely limited to the few swing states whose electoral outcomes are competitive, with politically "solid" states largely ignored. The maps to the right illustrate the amount spent on advertising and the number of visits to each state, relative to population, by the two major-party candidates in the last stretch of the 2004 presidential campaign. Supporters of the compact contend that a national popular vote would encourage candidates to campaign with equal effort for votes in competitive and non-competitive states alike." http://en.wikipedia.org......

So, in a nutshell, the Electoral College already polarizes.

A NPV would make it so that every vote counts.

"Presidential campaigns ignore 41 states because electoral votes are currently awarded to the candidate who gets the most popular votes within each separate state. Candidates, therefore, ignore states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind." http://www.usnews.com......

In the Mitt Romney and Obama campaigns, they only focused on swing states, which are only nine states. That's about 80 % of Americans ignored.

ng States do not conduct even half of the country's wishes. Just because they are at the "political center" doesn't mean that they represent America. That just means that they are politically moderate. What would be the most accurate reflection of what America wants is a popular vote!( i know this is like a paragraph ahead of the prevous statements so try not to get confused, im just putting it here for convience purposes)

My opponent claims that ignoring solid states is not "fair" and that we can't justify a swing state system since swing states don't accurately represent the country's will.

Let"s look at the facts in 2012 Ohio a major swing state voted for Obama by a margin of 3%[2] meanwhile if we look at the popular vote what we see is that Obama won by 3.8% points that seems like a pretty accurate reflection of the public's will to me.

Now let"s look at how people in the big cities voted. Remember my opponent stated "But there is a much larger population in those areas, which means more Americans. The vote should put these people in importance because most Americans in the country are concentrated in large urban cities. That means that large urban areas are what determines the majority of the public's opinions."

In Cities with population greater than 500k Obama won 69-29 percent [3] or a difference of forty percent to the of the .8% represented by Ohio.

I Fail to see how that is fair?

In conclusion

My opponent barley addresses my case and when she does she simply dismisses it without logical warrant. Furthermore she fails to demonstrate how a national vote will create a more "fair" election while the con gives you clear statistics demonstrating the necessity of the Electoral College.

Therefore I urge all of you to vote con in today's debate.

1)https://www.google.co.il...

2)http://www.270towin.com...

3)http://www.wnyc.org...
Yarely

Pro

Con's Contention One:

Yes I understand the definition of "deliberate" democracy. I fail to understand how having an Electoral College increases "deliberate" democracy.

There is absolutely no evidence placed in this.

How does the Electoral College encourage more "informed" voters. How do those two even correlate??

What I was saying was that if the people have less power in the political process, i.e. with the Electoral College, there would be less of an incentive to be more informed as the Electors in the Electoral College are the ones in charge of electing the president.

If people have more power, then there would be an increase in deliberative democracy since they have more of a choice about who becomes president.

The reason why an National Vote would be preferred is because with a National Vote, more people would be represented and the vote would be much more accurate.

I still fail to understand how the "Electoral College" which gives the voters less power, encourages "deliberative democracy."

I have not seen any evidence for this, just a bunch of quotes about people praising it, but no reasons why the Electoral College is an incentive for more informed voters.

Con's Contention Two: The Electoral College protects against fraud

First of all, the only thing Con says to "argue against" my claim that a close election is less likely since there would be large pools of data, is that it is wrong.

Any evidence?

Con doesn't acknowledge that it would be less likely that there would be fraud or that fraud wouldn't count as much since there would be huge pools of data.

"National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies."http://en.wikipedia.org......

All Con says is that the Electoral College prevents fraud, which doesn't really counteract my claim.

If anything, other restrictions can be placed to prevent minority and majority fraud.

It doesn't necessarily have to be with the Electoral College.

I never strawmanned Con.

Con stated that if a close election came under a National vote, recounts would be more difficult to handle.

What I stated in rebuttal was that under a National Vote, it would be less likely that there would be a close election since there would be enormous pools of data that would differentiate greatly.

Con's Contention Three:

You can't rely on swing sates to "reflect" public's will. That's just speculation.

The most accurate way to reflect the public will would be to actually focus on what most of them want instead of speculating in states that are at the political center.

I fail to understand how this would be an "inaccurate" way to see what the majority wants.

Ohio is much less populated and therefore less people would be affected by the choice of president.

Not everyone will always be pleased with the President, but most will if we get a majority vote on it.

In Conclusion

The Electoral College simply isn't necessary.

The Electoral College was established in the first place because the writers of the Constitution were Elitists and didn't want the "ignorant people" to choose the President because they were uneducated.

But now people are much more educated therefore eliminating the need for the Elitists to choose who runs the country.
The reason why in a National Vote, it would be a more "fair" election would be because it would accurately reflect the public's will.

The Majority Vote=Most of what the people want
Most of what the people want=A Fair Election

The Elitists should go

The People should decide

http://whowhatwhy.com......

http://www.usnews.com......

http://www.kpbs.org......

http://en.wikipedia.org......

Debate Round No. 3
anonynomous

Con

I would like to thank yarely again for this interesting debate with that in mind I would like to go over a couple basic guidelines and then show you why the con is winning on each of the major issues in today's debate.

I know we don't really discuss this but I think just to give the voters a basic guideline this debate should be judge on a cost-benefit analysis meaning you should be weigh each point and then vote for the side who demonstrates the most decisive impacts. If pro has any objection to this I ask her to address it in the comments.

With that in mind I would like to give the voters a quick summary on all the major points in this debate.

1) The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy.

As I clearly show you in my first contention the Electoral College increases deliberative democracy because of its very controversial nature. The fact the people question whether the Electoral College is a legitimate method drives them to become more informed and therefore contribute more to the electoral process. The only response pro makes to this is to misinterpreted the definition of deliberative and then claim I don't substantiate any of my claims despite multiple pieces of evidence. Therefore you can clearly see this point will be flowing to the con in today's debate.

2) The electoral protects against fraud and reduces possible dangerous delay's

Pro drops my first two impacts in this debate on majority and minority fraud so you can see those will clearly be flowing towards con in this debate. In fact these are the most important issues to today"s debate because if we allow fraud to corrupt the election process then it losses all legitimacy. Therefore you should be casting a con ballot just on those two issues.

Sub point c) the Electoral College prevents dangerous delays in the electoral process. Pro decided not to address this point and instead decides to simply straw man it and claim I talk about close election. In fact I see absolutely no problem in close elections as long as it reflects a popular will. The only problem that arises from these close races is the possible of recounts which in Electoral College are isolated to local states but that in a NV may have a crippling effect on the legelitaive process due to dangerous delays. Pro's only response to this is that in a NV we have less close elections but as I clearly demonstrate these elections are not close because large cities will not accurately represent America a clear negative impact. Therefore this point will also flow to the con.

3) The Electoral College reduces polarization- Pro accepts that a NV will polarize America and only focus on cities but attempts to justify this with unsubstantiated claims that big cities better represent America than swing states. Yet when confronted will empirical evidence to the contrary pro fails to mount any response. Thus this point also flows towards the con.

Thus for all the afometioned reasons I urge you to vote con in today's debate.
Yarely

Pro

I thank Con for competing with me in this debate.

1) The Electoral College increases "Deliberative Democracy":

This point barely even correlates to anything

How does the fact that it's controversial immediately lead to becoming more informed?

Deliberative Democracy means that the people weigh their options in deliberation before they make a majority vote. Whether the Electoral College system is there or not, the voters' decisions are going to be deliberate.

They are going to weigh their options based on the candidates credibility etc.

The Electoral College has nothing to do with deliberative democracy.

However, if a National Vote is placed, Deliberative Democracy would increase and citizens would become more informed because they have more of an incentive to vote.

"Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as 'a subject terrific for political analysis's is truly a gift that keeps on giving.' He furthers that 'the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching.' This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including 'clarifying citizens' understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens." -Con

How is this evidence? These are a bunch of claims that do not even correlate. The fact that the Electoral College is good for political analyzation, doesn't necessarily mean that it would immediately make voters try to be more informed because of it's complexity in the system.

"Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule."

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

2) I already stated that majority and minority fraud could be controlled by other methods other than the Electoral College.

Con clearly ignored that statement

Sub Point C)

It's not a straw man.

I clearly stated a fact which is that it is less likely that there would be extremely close scores since there would be large pools of data.

A straw man would mean that I misunderstood his statement and attacked it from my misunderstanding.

CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in"all states where any ballots could be contested." Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required." Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results.

First of all, Con stated that close election recounts in a National Vote, would cause dangerous delays

Am I right?

Because if I am, than I do not think it is faulty to say that under a direct vote, you wouldn't have to worry too much about dangerous delays because close elections would be much less likely because of large pools of data.

3)
That was barely evidence.

It's just logical to assume that if most people vote for a certain president (and most people live in cities) than I would conclude that most people in America want that President

Now I will conclude this with a statement:

The Electoral College was original established because the writers of the Constitution did not want the people to have too much power because they felt that the majority was uneducated.

Which they were.

But people nowadays are much more informed and have much easier access to information. So I would think that it is fair to conclude that the people should have more power in deciding their Presidents.

I also believe that people claiming that the Electoral College is necessary because it "represents all of the country" are wrong because the Electoral College forces Candidates to focus on a small number of states that are "politically centered" and practically speculated to be representative of the US's wishes.

Why base votes on speculation when you could base them on actual evidence, such as a fair majority vote?

It's just common sense that a vote would be more fair if the people who live in a country get to decide who runs their country.
It's just common sense that a majority vote would be an accurate vote.
It's just common sense that the Electoral College is outdated.

If people are going to have a President representing their country, than they better be the ones to decide who becomes the President to their country!

The People should rule
Not the Elite

Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Aned 1 year ago
Aned
Con's argument (in favor of electoral college) is horrible. He does not provide details nor examples of how people can benefit more from the electoral college method. All Con does is argue against Pro's points. Besides that, his first round is unreadable, two extensive paragraphs with so many typos and different topics mingled together that it rather causes headaches than a desire for reading.
Posted by Aned 1 year ago
Aned
With the electoral college, only people who live in swing states are encourage to vote. For example, since I live in California, what is the incentive for me to vote if I already know that California is going to be blue (democrat)? Is my vote making any difference? There is not even a sense of skepticism. And swing states are only a few.
Posted by Aned 1 year ago
Aned
Can Con make shorter paragraphs, please?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
I enjoyed reading this very much.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by jh1234l 1 year ago
jh1234l
anonynomousYarelyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: S/G to pro because his paragraph is more readable. Arguments to pro because con's Deliberative Democracy was fallacious, as pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by Aned 1 year ago
Aned
anonynomousYarelyTied
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: Because she is the only one making sense. Popular vote is a natural procedure while electoral college is a man made tricky process.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 1 year ago
GarretKadeDupre
anonynomousYarelyTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were far more convincing. Pro basically just repeated the same argument every round and it didn't seem that Pro understood Con's arguments. On top of this, Pro called the Founding Fathers 'elitist' and went on to claim that modern voters are more educated with respect to the voting process, both claims that I think are silly. However, Pro did format her arguments better and had less typos.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 1 year ago
The_Master_Riddler
anonynomousYarelyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: Hard to read cons args.(spelling and grammar) Pro had better args (convincing args)
Vote Placed by tmar19652 1 year ago
tmar19652
anonynomousYarelyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: "The People should rule Not the Elite" Also con needs to use paragraphing more effectively.