The Instigator
David090
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,829 times Debate No: 7408
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (12)

 

David090

Con

It seems as though every time I find myself in a discussion regarding the Electoral College I hear people saying that it should be abandoned in favor of a nationwide popular vote for the presidency.

This argument is so completely absurd that my skin crawls every time I hear it. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and they created a structure of government that has lasted for over two centuries. Furthermore, countries all around the world have emulated our democracy.

The Electoral College is part of the U.S. Constitution for very good reasons and anyone who opposes it hasn't done his/her homework.

In my experience, people only argue against the Electoral College when the candidate they favor for president doesn't win the election.

Is there someone out there willing to discuss the issue of abandoning the Electoral College System and replacing it with a Nationwide Popular Vote?
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, thanks for the debate.

I'll argue that a popular vote would be more democratic and more in the nations actual interest.

Secondly there have been at least two times in the past where the electoral college was abused by the electorates. An open vote system would avoid this.
Debate Round No. 1
David090

Con

Most people who favor abolishing the Electoral College (EC) believe that a Nationwide Popular Vote (NPV) for the presidency is "more fair" because it better reflects the will of the people as to who should be president.

This is an age old issue which goes back to the Founding Fathers. In the early days of the United States there was a debate among the States as to "how much representation" each State should get in the federal government.

States that were more heavily populated felt they should get more votes because they represent more people. States that were less populated disagreed as they did not want to have to bend to the will of the larger States around every corner.

The structure of the EC provides the best compromise to this issue when determining who should be president.

The number of electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in the House plus the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two regardless of the State's population).

Therefore the Constitution was drafted to grant more representation to larger States while, at the same time, preventing tyranny of the majority.

Points of Interest:

1. A nationwide popular vote assumes that all States are equal in population.

All States are not equal in population. Some States are more heavily populated than other States. If we were to go to a nationwide popular vote then there are enough people in the States of California, Illinois, New York, and Florida to decide every election. Without the EC, what voice would people in Wyoming get in who should be president?

The EC forces each presidential candidate to win over people in ALL States. If we were to have a nationwide popular vote, people living in smaller States would be ignored which could lead to disruption of our union.

Furthermore, abolishing the EC involves an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires � of the States to agree. How absurd would representatives from Wyoming and Nebraska sound if they went to their people and told them, "We're giving up our say in presidential elections?"

While States like California and Florida may favor abolishing the EC, it's unfair (and unrealistic) to expect smaller States to give up their advantage. If smaller States didn't want to do this 233 years ago, I don't think they will want to it today.

2. Each individual vote in smaller States carry more weight than they would in a direct election.

Think about it. In smaller States each vote is more important because there are fewer people in those States. In order for a candidate to win the presidency he/she has to win a majority of the EC votes which translates to a majority of States. Therefore, in order for a candidate to become president he/she has no choice to but to address the concerns of people in smaller States because he/she can't become president without the support of those States.

3. The EC helps ensure that voices of minorities are heard in the election.

Large States, like California for example, are referred to as "Majority-Minority" States. This means that the majority of the population in California is comprised of ethnic groups which only represent a minority of people nationwide. i.e. Hispanics, African Americans, Asians etc.

Reference: http://www.census.gov...

If we were to have a nationwide popular vote then the interests of minority groups would be ignored as they don't represent a majority. However, given that California has 55 electoral votes it's an important state. Consequently, if a candidate wants to win CA, then the voices of minorities need to be addressed.

Minorities would completely lose this advantage in a nationwide popular vote.

On the surface, the Electoral College may seem like it's taking away the people's right to choose the president, but it's really not. In most cases the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election. Opponents of the EC usually site the handful of instances when the popular vote lost the election to the EC vote. These are rare occurrences, and over the course of history they only prove our commitment to representing all people and not just the majority.

I like to think of the EC as being like Handicapped Bowling. The player who is underdog in a bowling match is given some "extra credit" at the beginning of the game in order to help even the playing field. However, in most cases, the person who is the better bowler still wins the game. On occasions when the underdog wins the bowling match as a result of his "extra credit," this is a legitimate win because the opportunity was spread evenly among the players from the beginning.

Any flukes that have occurred with the popular vote losing previous elections are the exception and not the norm. So why give up the protections the EC provides just so we can get a system we think is "more fair?"

The safeguards provided by the EC far outweigh any of its' perceived disadvantages. The EC represents the will of the people while at the same time preventing tyranny of the majority. And that, my friends, is in the best interest of all.
Yraelz

Pro

Thank you for the argument. But I'm going to go out on a limb and actually advocated the opposite.

I'm going to argue each of my opponents points of interest and then I'll get to some of my own points of interest.

1. The small states cry
================
I have various arguments against this contention but let's start at the top of my opponents argument. He first says that there are enough people in the states of California, Illnois, New York, and Florida to decide a popular vote if we didn't have an electoral college. Not quite true actually. Let's consider that there are 300,000,000 people in the United States here are those states:

California: 36,756,666
Illinois: 12,901,563
New York: 19,490,297
Florida: 18,328,340

Hmmm.......
Let's round each up for fun. 37 million, 13 million, 20 million, 19 million. Do some addition..... 89 million!
Now some division 89 / 300 = half of the popular vote? Not quite actually.

So let's figure out how many states it would take to equal half of the popular vote.

California: 36,756,666
Texas: 24,326,974
New York: 19,490,297
Florida: 18,328,340
Illinois: 12,901,563
Pennsylvania: 12,448,279
Ohio: 11,485,910
Michigan: 10,003,422
Georgia: 9,685,744

There we go 50.46% of the entire population right there. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

On the other hand what would it take to win the electoral college considering there are 538 electorates total:

California: 55
Texas: 34
New York: 31
Florida: 27
Illinois: 21
Pennsylvania: 21
Ohio: 20
Michigan: 17
Georgia: 15
North Carolina: 15
New Jersey: 15

Bringing us to a grand total of 271 electoral votes, or more than half. So let's consider.... It takes 9 states to win the popular vote and 11 states to win the electoral vote. Ah, it appears my opponent has won because under the electoral college two more states are really represented.

Only not. The electoral vote only requires a candidate to win half of the popular vote in any given state. This would actually be possible to do, that's why politicians campaign very heavily in those 11 states and make make their advocacy to conform to those 11 states. On the other hand there is absolutely no way that a politician could win 100% percent of the popular vote in all 9 states. In fact it's doubtful a politician could even win 70% of the vote in each of those 9 states. In other words that politician is only going to win if he focuses on many states outside of those 9.

In fact, under a popular vote even if we were to assume a candidate could really win something like 75% of the popular vote in each state (highly unlikely) that candidate would have to focus on 68% of the population. 68 x 75 = roughly half (51%). In other words the candidate would have to focus on the top 17 states at the every least. Though I'd postulate a candidate would have a tough time even doing that thus they'd have to focus on more states.

Yet the electoral system makes it so a candidate only has to win 51% in each state and thus only really has to focus on those 11 states in order to win. Hmmmm..... Representation? NOT!

So let's go into my opponents arguments a little more. He says, "without the EC, what voice would people in Wyoming get in who should be president." Considering that they don't have a voice now, and are not represented what-so-ever I'd argue that their citizens under a nationwide popular vote would have just as much say as every other citizen. And furthermore, that they would have a greater chance of being advocated too via candidates.

"The EC forces each presidential candidate to win over people in ALL States. If we were to have a nationwide popular vote, people living in smaller States would be ignored which could lead to disruption of our union." Ummm... no? In fact that's the exact opposite of what is true.

Next my opponent argues that abolishing the amendment wouldn't happen because the consitution requires a 3/4 vote to change and the smaller states wouldn't want to change it.
1. First I'd argue that they would want to change it because it's actually advantageous to them.
2. But more importantly this point just doesn't matter. The resolution asks whether we SHOULD change it. Not whether we COULD change it. Thus my only burden is to say that we should, whether we could has nothing to do with this topic.

2. The Individuals! Think about them!
=========================
My opponent argues that people in smaller states are better off because their votes are suddenly worth more. Actually I'd argue that's not quite the case. Under the electoral college if one votes for a candidate in their state but that candidate is not the winner of the popular vote in that state then the person's vote counts for absolutely nothing....
Secondarily though I'd argue that a person in D.C having three times the power of vote than a person in California is just dead wrong. One should not be given 3x the vote simply because they were born in a different part of the country. We're basically saying that one persons say in how this country is run is less than others.

3. Minorities Lulz!!!
==============
My opponent argues that the EC vote represents minorities more but I have a few major qualms with this idea.
1. Minorities are called minorities because they don't have a large population. This is problematic in the Electoral college because the lesser votes of a state simply go away and the entire state's electoral vote goes to whoever won the popular vote in that state. This means that minorities within states have extremely small chances of winning actual electoral votes by themselves and thereby their votes end up counting for nothing.
2. On the other hand in a popular vote system, whether a candidate wins the popular vote in a state or not those, the votes from minorities still carry through and can accumulate with similar minorities from other states to make a voting base.
3. Let's take the california example. Only some minorities in California will be represented because whoever loses doesn't get representation...... However in a popular vote system everyone would be represented and the state still has a massive population so I'd argue they get massive representation.
4. Based off of these conclusions one is more likely to focus on the minority voices in a popular election because they can accumulate and have more potential to matter.

4. Faithless Electorates
===============
Guess what, under the electoral college electorates don't actually have to vote for who they've pledged to vote for. Furthermore this has actually happened at least twice in the past of the United States. Meaning that the vote just doesn't flat out matter. http://www.votesmart.org... Check out faithless electors.

5. Not what we wanted.
================
And of course sometimes the EC vote isn't what the popular vote would have been. Thus not what the people really wanted. Best example is probably 2000 where we elected Bush. And I think we all saw what he did. ^.^

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 2
David090

Con

While I appreciate my opponent's research on the population of each state, my position still stands.

I can only conclude that those who disagree with the Electoral College do so because they simply just don't understand it. Almost like it's too complicated or something, and that people would prefer the nationwide popular vote simply because more people will "get it."

>>>>>>>>>>>

To in an effort to simplify things here is an example of a Divided Election (EC) vs. a Direct Election (Nationwide Vote) I found on the internet: Source: http://www.smm.org...

Let's assume the United States was divided into three States: North, Central and South. Each state has one million voters. The nation has two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans.

How much of a voice do you have in a nation-wide election? It depends on whether the election is direct or divided.

In a direct election, it's easy to calculate the power of your voice. You have one vote. There are three million total voters. Thus, your influence is 1 in 3,000,000.

In a divided election, it's a little bit trickier. Your vote helps your candidate carry your state. But in order for a candidate to win, they need to carry two of the three States. You need another state to join you.

Let's assume you support the Democratic candidate. Your influence in your home state is 1 in 1,000,000—there are 1,000,000 voters, and you are one of them. If the Democratic candidate carries a second state, your influence there is 0 in 1,000,000—that state also has 1 million voters, but you aren't one of them.

So, your influence in the two States the Democrat needs to win is 1 in 2,000,000.

In other words, your vote is 50% more powerful in the divided election than in a direct election. Each vote cast in this system has the same power as 1.5 votes in the direct system.

The same holds true for every voter in the country. The divided system has made the entire citizenry 1.5 times more powerful.

How can it be that everyone gets stronger and no one gets weaker? It has to do with the minimum number of votes a candidate needs to win.
• In a direct election, the candidate need one more than half of the total votes cast—in this case, that's 1,500,001.
• In a divided election, they need one more than half of the votes in only part of the nation. In our example, that's 500,001 in each of two States, or 1,000,002 total—a smaller number.

In each case, you as a citizen get one vote. Your vote moves your candidate one step closer to victory. But in a divided election that journey, though more complicated, ultimately takes a lot fewer steps. Fewer votes are needed to win, so each vote takes on more importance.

OPPONENT: Considering that they (Wyoming citizens), don't have a voice now and are not represented what-so-ever I'd argue that their citizens under a nationwide popular vote would have just as much say as every other citizen.

That's the Whole Point! The goal of the EC is to give the individual votes in Wyoming MORE power and MORE say than other citizens to help compensate for their smaller numbers. If you go to a nationwide popular vote you take that away and make their votes equivalent to the rest of the country.

>>>>>>>>>>>

OPPONENT: "One should not be given 3x the vote simply because they were born in a different part of the country. We're basically saying that one persons say in how this country is run is less than others."

No one is saying that people in the smaller States have more say. The amount of say they have is being elevated up to the amount of say that people in larger States have.

>>>>>>>>>>>

OPPONENT: " Abolishing the amendment wouldn't happen because the constitution requires a 3/4 vote to change and the smaller States wouldn't want to change it.
1. First I'd argue that they would want to change it because it's actually advantageous to them.
2. But more importantly this point just doesn't matter. The resolution asks whether we SHOULD change it. Not whether we COULD change it. Thus my only burden is to say that we should, whether we could has nothing to do with this topic."

This is irrelevant and my opponent completely missed the point.

Why after 233 years has it not been changed if it's so unfair? The reason it hasn't been changed is because of the extra power it gives to the smaller States and they'll never agree to change it.

I encourage my opponent to write letters to the Wyoming State Legislature asking for abandonment of the EC and let me know what response he gets.

>>>>>>>>>>>

OPPONENT: " Minorities are called minorities because they don't have a large population. This is problematic in the Electoral College because the lesser votes of a state simply go away and the entire state's electoral vote goes to whoever won the popular vote in that state."

This is a crucial phalacy regarding the EC. A vote for the losing candidate is not a wasted vote. It's simply a vote for the losing candidate.

OPPONENT: "Minorities within States have extremely small chances of winning actual electoral votes by themselves and thereby their votes end up counting for nothing."

So you're in favor of stacking the minority's interests up against the entire nation when you acknowledge they're already underrepresented in their own state?

>>>>>>>>>>>

In regard to Faithless Electors the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in Ray v. Blair (1952) where the court ruled in favor of States rights to punish faithless electors.

There are laws in 24 States that punish faithless electors, and in States where these laws do not exist it's up to the people of those States to impose them.

Furthermore, Faithless Electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do.

That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.

Regardless, it is up to each States to handle faithless electors in whatever manner they see fit as the Electoral Votes belong to the States.

>>>>>>>>>>>

SUMMARY

We seem to forget the structure of our own government. We've fallen into the idea that the Federal Government is the only government in the land and that people in California and people in Nebraska don't have individual governments of their own. We're forgetting about the States.

Our country is a Federal Republic of independent governments united under one banner. Each state is free to govern itself and the role of the federal government is to preserve the union.

Citizens fall under the category of their own States. This is why we have laws regarding state residency and other laws that vary from state to state.

Each state is its' own independent government and the people directly elect the representatives for their States. The States then choose the president.

Furthermore, the notion of "majority rules" isn't always the best approach in making decisions. The majority is not always right. Granting decision power to the minority some of the time shows our commitment to all people. Which is, after all, what we're supposed to be about.
Yraelz

Pro

Definitely have a pretty complete understanding of the electoral college. Unfortunately my opponent doesn't even bother addressing my main argument in this debate.

The win
======
In the United States, under the electoral college a presidential candidate can focus on the top eleven states by population. In these top eleven states the candidate only needs to get a majority of votes over his opponent. This could be 51% of the votes or less in that state. That's all. A presidential candidate literally only has to focus on the top 11 states by population and maybe a few more to make sure he/she is safe in order to win an election.

On the other hand, in the United States, under a popular vote a presidential candidate would have to attain 51% of the vote in the country. Even with a great presidential candidate, say one that could win 75% of the voter population in each state, that candidate would still have to focus on the top 17 states by population. But 75% in a state is rare to say the least, the average presidential candidate would have to advocate to far more than the 17 states in the 75% scenario.

So what does this mean in real world terms? It means that under the electoral college a presidential candidate only has to, and only tries to appease the needs of the top states by population. A president can literally just focus on those 11. Yet in a popular vote system a presidential candidate would literally have to focus on many more states than this in order even have a chance of winning. This means the presidential candidate would have to focus on a greater variety of people as a voting base and make policies that represent those people. The bottom line is that a popular vote system for president would support a greater number of people, represent more, and have a smaller chances of leaving people without a voice.

All of this analysis is in my very first contention from my last speech labeled "The small states cry". Yet my opponent literally does not contradict any part of this analysis. Thus not only since the argument is really solid but also because my opponent doesn't touch it at all I think this is going to be the number one voting issue in today's debate.

But for the sake of things I'll dispel these other theories also.

Three part state
==========
My opponent argues that an electoral college makes your vote 1.5 times more powerful. This is actually my point. Let's use his example of the North, the South, and the Central. Each of these have a population of 1 million people. A presidential candidate only has to win 500,001 or greater than his opponent in two of these three states. So let's imagine Presidential candidate anonymous. Anonymous in this election only has to win two of three states, and only 50% of their vote at that. Thus presidential candidate can literally just advocate to those two states while completely ignoring the needs of the third state. In fact the votes could be like this:

North: 500,001 votes for Anonymous
Central: 500,001 votes for Anonymous
South: 0 votes for Anonymous

Note: This is 1,000,001 votes out of a possible 3,000,000.

and Anonymous would still win. He could literally ignore everyone in the South state and still win. This is how I attain all of my story about minorities being unrepresented. In this system the president can simply ignore the needs of entire swaths of the population.

On the other hand in a direct election the presidential candidate would have to attempt to advocate to much larger swaths of the population in order to gain his victory. Especially since it would be nearly impossible to get even 66% in states North and Central (considering this model is anything like the U.S).

Additionally though my opponents analysis on everyone have 1.5 times the amount of vote is just flat out nonsensical. Imagine we all have one vote now. Under my opponents advocacy now we all have 1.5 votes... but that doesn't actually do anything. We all still have the exact same amount of votes as everyone else.

Wyoming
======
1. Yes, my opponent is right their votes would become worth less.
2. However, Wyoming isn't represented under the EC currently. A presidential candidate is not going to make his advocacy conform to that which would be desirable for Wyoming in the status quo.
3. Yet under the popular vote system the presidential candidate would literally be forced to expand his base and advocate to a greater population. Which means under the popular vote system Wyoming would have a great chance of being represented.

They Won't change now!
===============
My opponent once again argues that whether or not the states would vote for a popular vote system as opposed to the current EC is somehow relevant to this debate. I would agree with my opponent if the resolution said, "The Electoral College should be voted down by the states." However the resolution states that, "The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned". Even if it's true that the states won't get rid of it that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be sacked. For instance I should not eat hot lava. The fact that I would never eat lava doesn't change the fact that I should not eat hot lava. In much the same way the fact that the states would not remove the EC doesn't change the fact that they still should.

My opponent also argues that it hasn't been changed because it's unfair. That's not true, rather it's just not in the interest any single state. It's in the interest of the people as a whole(especially minorities), and I think I give a great deal of analysis as to why this is the case.

Minorities
=======
This is where I believe my opponent is just flat out losing this debate. He argues that a minorities chance of winning electoral votes right now is so very slim but under a popular vote it'll just be smaller.
1. I deny this logic for a number of reasons. The first is simply an extension of my past analysis where I argue that minorities don't have enough votes now but if you include similar minorities from multiple states their is a heightened chance of a combined base that presidential candidate might actually target.
2. Secondarily though simply extend all of my analysis on how presidential candidates under the EC now only have to advocate to the top 11 states by population and can literally ignore giant swaths of the country (including minorities).
3. But third. Even if a judge bought everything my opponent says on how minorities will be unrepresented in a popular vote then the judge would still buy my opponents analysis when he says that the EC already has a small chance of representing minorities. Thus not much of impact and I think we can only really go up.

Faithless Electors
===========
I realize there are laws in place to stop faithless electors but that hasn't stopped faithless electors from happening. In fact looks to my opponents case, he offers an example from 2000. Additionally, it's true, faithless electors have not thrown an election yet. However that doesn't mean they couldn't in the future. This is a potential harm with the EC that the popular vote would never have. Thus on this issue, the popular vote will always be inherently better.

My opponents summary
===============
David090 argues that the states have their own governments and should be allowed to govern themselves. This is true but my point still stands. Those smaller states don't get advocated too or supported by the presidential candidates. Thus those states in our society just aren't represented, especially from the presidential standpoint.

Furthermore he argues that majority rule isn't the best approach in some cases. I'd argue that the current EC lets 11 states rule. And I'd say that's a sore shot worse than the popular rule we could have. At least a majority of our country would have a voice in the future of our country.

With that I thank all, especially my opponent! Have fu
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
David said that the founding fathers knew what they were doing. This was not the case for the Electoral college. It came about as a compromise: They wanted full democracy, but others didn't trust the citizens and wanted the Pres. to be appointed by Congress. They did the Electoral College instead to prevent argument.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
I'm against it because, in all but 4 elections, our country was a democracy. But the EC made the winner of the popular vote lose. It doesn't matter how you look at it, that's just wrong.

Yes, the people who voted for Gore are angry. They're angry because the EC made us elect a complete idiot.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
Right.... so there is always someone who doesn't like the EC because it doesn't fairly represent....
Posted by David090 7 years ago
David090
Posted by ournamestoolong
Do you even remember the 2000 election? It is broke, we need to fix it.

That's the Issue Right There! The only people who propose abandoning the EC are the people who disagree with its outcome.

If the situation in 2000 were completely reversed, then all the Bush supporters would be attacking the EC instead of Gore's.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
"The Founding Father's compromise on this issue is evident in the structure of the Congress by having a Senate and a House. The total no. of EC votes each state gets is equal to the number of votes the state has in the legislature. The two are directly connected and based on the same principle."

This principle worked in the 1800's, it doesn't work now. Wyoming still only has 3 electoral votes, and is widely ignored.

"Those who propose a nationwide popular vote should also propose restructure of the Congress while they're at it. If their way of doing things is so much better, why stop at the president?"

No, we just can't use a premise that doesn't work for the presendential election, for the presedential election.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Do you even remember the 2000 election? It is broke, we need to fix it.
Posted by David090 7 years ago
David090
Posted by ournamestoolong:
For the record, the founding fathers created the EC because nationwide campaigns were unrealistic so people could not learn about the candidate, electors had to choose for them because people could not make the decision based on the info they had. Otherwise, people would vote for the candidate from their state.

Response: This is only part of the issue. The other part is that smaller states did not want to always have to bend to the will of larger states, and the larger states wanted more votes because they represented more people.

The Founding Father's compromise on this issue is evident in the structure of the Congress by having a Senate and a House. The total no. of EC votes each state gets is equal to the number of votes the state has in the legislature. The two are directly connected and based on the same principle.

Those who propose a nationwide popular vote should also propose restructure of the Congress while they're at it. If their way of doing things is so much better, why stop at the president?

The answer is because our structure provides for more fair representation of the will of the states which is exactly what the EC does in regard to the presidency.

Arguments proposing a change to the presidential election process are absurd. If it 'ant broke, don't fix it.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Ok, David, i'll have my reply now.
Posted by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
Lol, my entire argument was about minorities almost.....
Posted by TexasCowboy70 7 years ago
TexasCowboy70
I like David090's point about protecting minorites. Yraetz's arguments on those weren't as convincing to me.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 7 years ago
Yraelz
David090YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Interrobang 7 years ago
Interrobang
David090YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by CP 7 years ago
CP
David090YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
David090YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
David090YraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Colucci 7 years ago
Colucci
David090YraelzTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Wii_Master_Nin 7 years ago
Wii_Master_Nin
David090YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by Crust89 7 years ago
Crust89
David090YraelzTied
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 
Vote Placed by TexasCowboy70 7 years ago
TexasCowboy70
David090YraelzTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DebateGuy 7 years ago
DebateGuy
David090YraelzTied
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:70