The Instigator
awoutas
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
emospongebob527
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the electoral college be here?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 28339
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

awoutas

Pro

Many say the electoral college should not be in place. They say that their vote doesn't count, as the winner in that state takes all. So if a Democratic candidate wins in your state, and you voted for a Republican, you vote doesn't count. But the electoral college keeps fairness in the elections. One candidate could ask (or bribe) 10,000 people to vote for him. He/she could call it a "test group" or something of that nature. That could easily put the candidate over the threshold to win the county or state, giving him the amount of votes the state has. The would be ALOT more election corruption with a Popular Vote-Only system.
emospongebob527

Con

I will allow you to expand upon your arguments in R2.
Debate Round No. 1
awoutas

Pro

The electoral college is vital to the elections system in this country. We'll use the 2012 election as an example.:

Barack Obama got 62,611,250 of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes.
Mitt Romney got 59,134,475 of the popular vote and 206 electoral votes.
(source: Politico.com, http://www.politico.com...)

This was a fair and square election with Barack Obama winning everything. But this wasn't the case in 2000; The infamous election in which the man with the popular vote lost. But Bush did win fair and square, he won the state of Florida. Gore only won a sliver more than Bush in the popular vote. Remember, Gore could have urged (basically forced) supporters to vote for him, and that doesn't mean that he got the vote fairly. According to multiple news outlets at the time (ABC,NBC,CBS,etc.), Bush did win in Florida, therefore it was fair that he won.

Also, the 2000 election shows that with a popular voting system, nearly every election would have multiple recounts, hanging chads or not. The losing candidate would almost definitely demand a recount if only the popular vote was in place.

Finally, the electoral college prevents the elections from being corrupted and unfair. Also, it lets a candidate win based on winning in important places. It would be possible for a candidate to win by only getting the vote in small population states like North Dakota and Montana.
emospongebob527

Con

emospongebob527 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
awoutas

Pro

awoutas forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.