The Instigator
Polaris_SSBM
Pro (for)
The Contender
FungusOfHam
Con (against)

The Electoral College Is A Terrible System/Should Be Removed

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
FungusOfHam has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/8/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 149 times Debate No: 116379
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Polaris_SSBM

Pro

The Electoral College is essentially a middle finger to democracy - It completely ignores the peoples true wishes quite frequently, even if the candidate who won the electoral college also won the popular vote. There have been quite a few elections where the winner had a close race against the loser, for example Garfield v. Hancock where he won 214 electoral votes compared to 155 electoral votes despite a 7,000 voter difference, Nixon v. Kennedy where Kennedy was just over 100,000 votes ahead of Nixon but still had 303 electoral votes to Nixon's 219, and Nixon v. Humphrey, where Nixon won by 515,000 votes, which is the population of Wyoming almost, but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. Then there are the elections where the winner of the election by popular vote still loses, and this is fresh in our minds still with Trump v. Hillary and Gore v. Bush almost 20 years ago. In fact, the winner could have more than 70% of the nation vote against them and still win if they win California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and a few more states. The Electoral College is also plagued by Gerrymandering, which can split up a voter base to be spread thin and have a concentrated population that will always vote a certain way dictate where that district goes.

The biggest complaint about a democratic vote is the fear that politicians would just go to big cities, but this is not true. Going past the top 6 most populated cities would already be in the 100,000s. In a democratic vote, campaigning would be forced to be more broad and open rather than focusing on key states to win. Even if you aimed for the 5 largest states by population, and got 100% of their vote, you would still fail to to win the election, and even then this is impossible, all humans will vote differently, and while there are cases where candidates win large portions of a state, there has been no event where anyone won 100% of a state's Population excluding the potential of the election of 1820 and the Washington elections with the few states that had popular vote.
FungusOfHam

Con

**The Electoral College is essentially a middle finger to democracy **

The Electoral College isn't about Democracy. It's about defending the descendents of the forfathers. It is about their liberty. It is about protecting the Republic.

1)The United States is not a "Democracy".

"The"United States of America"(USA), commonly known as the"United States"(U.S.) or"America, is a"federal republic"composed of 50"states, a"federal district, five major"self-governing territories, and"various possessions."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2)The word "Democracy" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution.

"Many will be shocked to learn that the word "democracy" was neither used in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were anxious and fearful of allowing any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority."

https://www.cato.org...

**It completely ignores the peoples true wishes quite frequently**

2016 Electoral map by county (Donald Trump winner in red)-

http://i0.wp.com...

Electoral map 2008 by county (Obama winner in blue)-

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

**The biggest complaint about a democratic vote is the fear that politicians would just go to big cities, but this is not true.**

Sure it is. Democrats get their votes in the big cities.

**Going past the top 6 most populated cities would already be in the 100,000s. In a democratic vote, campaigning would be forced to be more broad and open rather than focusing on key states to win.**

Incoherent ramblings.

**Even if you aimed for the 5 largest states by population, and got 100% of their vote, you would still fail to to win the election...**

Good. Importing migrants for political power won't help the Democrat Party. Imagine if you were Somalion, living in Somalia, and 40 million Russians moved into Somalia. You, as a 20th generation Somalian still have the right to rule your country.
Debate Round No. 1
Polaris_SSBM

Pro

1. How can the electoral College protect the Republic when arguably all presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College (Including 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Democratic-Republican) have done nothing but destroyed the Republic? Donald Trump has increased the already absurdly high military budget to 700 billion when that should go to helping the very people he represents, considered starting an unnecessary invasion of Venezuela, insulted North Korean Dictator Kim Jun Un when they were making massive progress in their nuclear development and can easily strike South Korea and Japan by pure irrational-ism, and caused unnecessary damage to relations with other countries, Bush responded poorly to Katrina, created crony capitalism by bailing out the big banks (If I am correct though Obama also did this which I disapprove of) and set no foundation for Barrack Obama to try and fix the country after the crash of 2008, Harrison was supportive of kicking around Indians, didn't support Civil war veterans (And mind you, he was a veteran himself), levied rather high tariffs, and Adams was a supporter of the "Tariff of Abominations". All it has done has given us presidents that perform poorly, and some are considered to be the worst in US history, such as Harrison.

2. Federal Republicanism is a branch of Republicanism, and thus is also under democracy as Republicanism is democracy with representatives, hence "Representative Democracy". The people still have say, just not as directly as a democracy would make it to be.

3. Even if the word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it can still be amended to include it, and of course there have been amendments that change what the Constitution says (That also involve Representative Democracy), Women's' Rights Voting Rights, Change of Voting Age and the right for former Black Slaves to vote.

4. Still, Trump lost by almost 3 million Votes in the popular vote, and even though those areas did have a majority vote for Trump, that still dwarfs in comparison to the bigger states that really matter. The population of San Francisco is 300,000 more than Wyoming but is just a mere city. While Obama still won the popular vote in '08, it's unfair for those who voted for McCain for president as their votes practically didn't matter.

5. While Democrats get their votes in the big cities, they won't influence elections like crazy in the Electoral College when they can be a stronghold for certain candidates because they can dictate where a state's Electoral Votes go to.

6. I believe that this point should be clarified. Even if you won all cities down to Spokane, Washington, you would still fail to win the vote. In a democratic vote like Republicanism is based upon, you would be forced to do far more campaigning in more areas.

7. Okay, just what the heck are you trying to say here?

And now for some new info.

1. Electors in some states don't have to vote for who the people voted for. While this usually isn't going to do anything to help anyone win, this is wildly un-republican.
2. The Electoral College can discourage people from voting as their vote doesn't matter if their state chooses to vote for someone else.
3. If a vote is tied or not very clear in a electoral based system, the House is responsible for deciding who wins. Once again, this is very un-republican, and also is too confusing and time consuming versus a more efficient first past the post vote.
4. The Electoral college will always fail to properly represent the people unless a district has a 100% vote for a candidate (Which has never happened as far as I am aware of), because their votes will be ignored when in a democratic vote everyone has equal say.
5. The Electoral College also fails spectacularly at protecting smaller states like our Founding Fathers were ultra concerned about as it make smaller states worthless and bigger states incredibly powerful. If you won Rhode Island for example, you wouldn't really care it's just 4 electoral votes, but if you won California you would be eccentric because you now have 55 electoral votes.
FungusOfHam

Con

**How can the electoral College protect the Republic when arguably all presidents who lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College (Including 3 Republicans, 1 Democrat, and 1 Democratic-Republican) have done nothing but destroyed the Republic?**

Conjecture.

** Donald Trump has increased the already absurdly high military budget to 700 billion when that should go to helping the very people he represents, considered starting an unnecessary invasion of Venezuela, insulted North Korean Dictator Kim Jun Un when they were making massive progress in their nuclear development and can easily strike South Korea and Japan by pure irrational-ism, and caused unnecessary damage to relations with other countries**

Art of the Deal. You should read it.

*(Bush responded poorly to Katrina, created crony capitalism by bailing out the big banks (If I am correct though Obama also did this which I disapprove of) and set no foundation for Barrack Obama to try and fix the country after the crash of 2008, Harrison was supportive of kicking around Indians, didn't support Civil war veterans (And mind you, he was a veteran himself), levied rather high tariffs, and Adams was a supporter of the "Tariff of Abominations". All it has done has given us presidents that perform poorly, and some are considered to be the worst in US history, such as Harrison.**

Hs nothing to do with the electoral college.

**Even if the word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution, it can still be amended to include it**

But has never happened in real life on planet Earth. Invoking mythological concepts will not help you here.

**Still, Trump lost by almost 3 million Votes in the popular vote, and even though those areas did have a majority vote for Trump, that still dwarfs in comparison to the bigger states that really matter. The population of San Francisco is 300,000 more than Wyoming but is just a mere city.**

I wonder how he faired with the 5th generation Americans. Probably about 80% .

**Okay, just what the heck are you trying to say here?**

Importing voters is tyranny. Our founding fathers blocked it from a future monopoly. If only 5th generation Americans could vote, the Democrat Party would never win again or even come close to winning a Presidential election. They were smarter than you think.

https://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 2
Polaris_SSBM

Pro

1. No, they have arguably done much wrong. Once again, the tariffs from a large portion of the presidents listed hurt the United States (Or will in the case of Trump) and all of them failed to get re-elected (Note that I excluded Bush here, his steel tariff was too small to really do any glaring damage, or at least compared to the massive amount of damage that the other presidents did and also because he got re-elected still), losing to Cleveland and Jackson in 1892 and 1828 respectively. The approval ratings also speak for themselves. Trump is sitting around 40% and Bush, while starting off high, eventually tumbled down to 28%.

2. This is not a fantasy land where business and politics mix. Increasing the military budget and mind you also removing funds from programs such as the EPA which is needed to keep companies and their products in check to prevent massive environmental damage is not just simple business, what happens during a presidency can last for years, even for a century as shown with Woodrow Wilson and his Wilsonian politics still being reminiscent almost 100 years after his presidency. His invasion of Venezuela would just be a repeat of Vietnam only it's the Millennial, not the Baby Boomer Generation that will hold the brunt of his brash and unpredictable decisions. His flat out ad hominen attacks against Kim Jun Un are completely unacceptable and put 2 countries at risk considering the unhinged manner of Kim, and the willingness to give a blank check to Kim after the summit shows he has no clue of what he is doing. Finally, Trump has arguably worsened relations with other nations, such as Canada, most nations of Europe, China, and Mexico. This is not making a deal, this is stupidity leading the country. With a first past the post system, Trump, along with the likes of Adams, Harrison, Hayes (Who I forgot to mention but was the reason why reconstruction was halted), and Bush wouldn't had been elected and the damage that they did would had never been done. The effects of the Hayes Presidency for example still reflects to this day, with racism still being an issue in our country thanks to the halt in reconstruction. Basically, this part explains that every single time the president who loses the popular vote is elected, they have only been damaging our country.

3. It does. It shows that the Electoral college makes unpopular, and destructive presidents win the election. You also purposely took this out of context so that you can make your argument look better when in reality anyone who has taken a closer look would know that I am explaining how presidents that lost the popular vote have often been destructive and only got the office by picking the right states or the House gave them the presidency.

4. This argument makes no sense. You are acting as if I did say that Democracy has happened, which is has, and that the Constitution can be amended, which it can.

5. Just because someone did well in a certain demographic, doesn't mean that they have the right to be president.

6. No, importing voters in our country is a much more democratic form of Gerrymandering, and isn't something that is an issue as of now, and even if they get citizens here, they have a right to vote because they are citizens. It's also something incredibly inconceivable as you would most likely need a few million voters to come in, get their citizenship, and wait for the next election which could take YEARS. Also, no non-citizen would be foolish enough to vote, they would get deported, hefty fines, or face imprisonment. While they did create the electoral college to prevent possible influence from nations, it has also caused elections to be deceivingly close when they really aren't and caused people who shouldn't have been president to become president.

I would also like to mention how my opponent has failed to make a proper agreement against the following arguments I myself have stated -

1. How Republicanism is still influenced by the people and thus the people still make the decisions but just in an indirect manor.
2. How electors can simply just make votes on their own without repercussions in a large portion of the states
3. How the electoral college can make votes worthless and thus discourage voting
4. How the House picks who the president is if there is a tie in the electoral college
5. How it fails to properly represent the people of a district 100% of the time
6. How it fails to make smaller states more valuable (And in fact makes them completely worthless)
7. How unfair it is that 70% of the nation can vote against a candidate and that candidate can still win in the Electoral College with the larger states
8. How Gerrymandering is an issue that is inherently undemocratic and un-republican.

The last thing that I would like to point out is how my opponent has made some very flawed arguments that have nothing to do with the electoral college, such as

1. When I pointed out that Donald Trump has been a damaging candidate and how the removal of the electoral college would prevent him from doing such damage, he just responded with a book that I probably won't read (Primarily because I have a strong hatred for reading books), and pretty sure that viewers wouldn't read as well. It's an argument that is incredibly flawed and weak, and is just a red herring.

2. Taking my mentioning of the flaws of every president who lost the popular vote out of context. Just because certain parts of my argument are still not in your rebuttal doesn't mean that it never existed, and in fact only makes you look bad as you are failing to respond properly to my arguments. This is another red herring combined with a straw man.

3. In my Rebuttal of the electoral college protecting the Republic, he stated that what I said were opinions. Sure, crashing the economy, ruining relations with other countries, raising tariffs that hurt Americans, supporting the removal and assimilation of Indians that has been proven is an opinion. But getting back into the argument, the damage done by the presidents who lost the popular vote is crystal clear, and it's not like it's 1910 when lies could be more easily spread due to the lacking of round the clock televised NEWS, radio, and the internet, you can look this up and see the incredibly disastrous effects of the Trump, Bush, Harrison, Hayes, and Adams presidencies. And yes, while Bush won the 2004 election with the popular vote, if he wouldn't have had the weight of 9'11 and mission accomplished behind him, he might had faced a much closer election, but right there I am starting to get distracted.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.