The Instigator
codemeister13
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Adeimantus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 793 times Debate No: 45411
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

codemeister13

Pro

The electoral college should be abolished. This is the resolution and the debate that I do challenge you to, my friend. For those that wish to look on, the debate structure shall look like this:

First Round - Acceptance only
Second Round - Opening statements/arguments
Third Round - Rebuttals
Fourth Round - Closing statements/arguments

Best of luck to my opponent and I look forward to the debate.
Adeimantus

Con

When we live in a Country with 317 million people, we need the electoral college.

Sorry for accepting late. I was looking at some 4chan posts and it reminded me to come check :P
Anyways, best of luck to you as well.
Debate Round No. 1
codemeister13

Pro

Resolved: The electoral college should be abolished.

I stand in affirmation of this resolution. As it currently stands, the electoral college is an ineffective way of dealing with the presidential election. Already in our nation's history, there have been four times where the electoral college has given the presidency to the candidate that did not win the popular vote. Despite how we wish that the electoral college represents each one of our individual beliefs, it does not.

Even within the electoral college, the general population of each state does not get to choose who the "electors" shall be that sit in upon the electoral college. Each of these electors are chosen by the respective political parties at their major conventions for the state. Typically, the electors chosen are those that have shown long-term dedication to a certain political party.

To highlight my previous point, I wish to show that the electoral college, while supposed to vote in favor of the state's majority, they are not forced to. According to the U.S archives, there are not any legal ramifications should a state vote Democratic and the electoral college votes Republican. This means that the electoral college also holds an insane amount of power over the country and, should they be corrupted, there is no legal action that could be taken against the electors other than a small fine that may be imposed by a state. To top this off, it is at the state's discretion as to whether or not the general public can even watch them perform this vote, meaning there's a chance for absolutely no accountability.

Moving on, the electoral college is has become obsolete. Thanks to modern-day technology, we now have the ability to vote by mail, go to the polls, or vote online, in some cases. The electoral college was originally created in a time period where it was necessary to have this since communication was not something that could done in a timely manner nor could they receive the votes of every person in a state in a timely manner. The electoral college has long overstayed its welcome and thus, I move that it should be abolished.

Sources:
http://www.archives.gov...
http://www.archives.gov...
http://www.archives.gov...
Adeimantus

Con

The electoral college is NOT an ineffective way of dealing with the presidential election. You state in your point that the electoral college is ineffective because,

"...there have been four times where the electoral college has given the presidency to the candidate that did not win the popular vote."

I must say immediately, why is it that you sourced all your other facts but not this one? I would like to see you provide evidence of all *4* times this happened. Secondly, even if true this does not demonstrate the fact you so proclaim, that the electoral college is ineffective. This article states:

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States."

The duty of the electoral college is to place their votes for the presidential candidates and they have done that every single time, resulting in a very effective process. Although you may disagree with the direct vs non direct voting system, you cannot say that the electoral college in ineffective. Although it is wrong that the Electoral College is in effective, it is true that the Electoral College isn't obligated to vote the popular vote, which some say is wrong.

I believe it is vitally important to have men and women of politics, education and wisdom voting for the president instead of the masses. Look at the masses now, if they could have their way, the popular vote would be for a hopeless buffoon, a leading figure in culture. This is a country to be run. It needs the right type of leader to be elected, not the one that the masses like the most.

With presidential elections that result in a popularity and advertising contest, we need a stage / phase that can base their decision more wisely AND with what the masses want. The E.C is not ineffective, and it is necessary to keep our country running and not become a laughing stock of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
http://www.archives.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
codemeister13

Pro

"I must say immediately, why is it that you sourced all your other facts but not this one? I would like to see you provide evidence of all *4* times this happened."

To start, I wish to provide you with a source that lists the four times in which the electoral college has given the presidential victory to the candidate that did not win the popular vote:

http://www.factcheck.org...

"Secondly, even if true this does not demonstrate the fact you so proclaim, that the electoral college is ineffective. This article states:

'There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States.'"

Exactly. As it currently stands, there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires the electors to vote with the popular vote in their state. This is precisely one of the downfalls of the electoral college. If electors are not required to vote with the majority, there will always be the chance that it may vote against what the population wants and it will vote to serve its own interests, rather than that of the majority. If anything, my opponent has conceded to this point of my argument.

"The duty of the electoral college is to place their votes for the presidential candidates and they have done that every single time, resulting in a very effective process. Although you may disagree with the direct vs non direct voting system, you cannot say that the electoral college in ineffective. Although it is wrong that the Electoral College is in effective, it is true that the Electoral College isn't obligated to vote the popular vote, which some say is wrong."

As I cited above, there have been cases where the electoral college has failed in handing the victory to the presidential candidate that the majority of the population wanted. The way the electoral college is set up now, as I believe I've referenced before, a candidate can win the presidential election while winning approximate 22% of the population vote.

"I believe it is vitally important to have men and women of politics, education and wisdom voting for the president instead of the masses. Look at the masses now, if they could have their way, the popular vote would be for a hopeless buffoon, a leading figure in culture. This is a country to be run. It needs the right type of leader to be elected, not the one that the masses like the most."

This is a baseless assumption against the general population. To state that, as a people, we would rather elect someone such as Kim Kardashian as our president rather than an actual political leader is false. On balance, I would be willing to provide a near-guarantee that many people would not just elect local celebrities for leaders.

"With presidential elections that result in a popularity and advertising contest, we need a stage / phase that can base their decision more wisely AND with what the masses want. The E.C is not ineffective, and it is necessary to keep our country running and not become a laughing stock of the world."

Yes, the presidential election is a large advertising contest throughout most of the election process. The phase in which people can work to base their decisions on factual evidence are the presidential debates. That is the phase where each candidate sits down as we are doing right now and they hash it out over topics that are important to the people and to the country as a whole. It is during this time in the election process that the general population gets a chance to see exactly what each candidate wants to do with the country and how they're going to do it.

Again, I feel I must stress the importance of how we do not have an impartial college either. As I stated above, in many states the electors that sit on the college are chosen by the reigning political parties of the day and age. This means that minority parties are unlikely to stand a chance in the presidential election as well.

Sources:
http://www.factcheck.org...
Adeimantus

Con

Adeimantus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
codemeister13

Pro

codemeister13 forfeited this round.
Adeimantus

Con

Adeimantus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
. . . I wish I could vote. :(
No votes have been placed for this debate.