The Instigator
Hylian_3000
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

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  
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: 12/21/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,368 times Debate No: 98301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (0)

 

Hylian_3000

Pro

Introduction

I will be advocating that the Electoral College in the United States should distribute their votes proportionate to the amount of people who voted for each candidate in the state.

Rules of Debate

Debate Structure
Round 1:
Rules and acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments (Constructive)
Round 3: Second Constructive
Round 4: Con's Rebuttal and Closing. Pro must not post anything in this round due to the BoP.
Round 5: Pro's Rebuttal and Closing. Con must not post anything in this round due to the BoP.

(Constructive: New arguments and rebuttals)
(Rebuttal: No new arguments, only rebuttals. If the debater brings up a new argument in the rebuttals they automatically lose.)

Burden of Proof
The BoP will rest on Pro. Pro must prove that changing the Electoral College in the US will benefit the country in order to win. Con does not need to prove that the current system is better, but that the proposed system is worse or won't work.

Other
Fiat is in effect. In the debate we will assume that the bill will pass through the law-approving process. The debate will not be about whether or not it will pass, just about its effects.

Do not accept the debate if you doubt that you will be able to post on all rounds. Due to the Forfeit glitch on Debate.org, it's not just an inconvenience, it makes us physically unable to continue the debate.

Please, be serious about this debate.

If any of the rules are broken by either debater, that debater immediately loses.

For voters, please try to remain unbiased. Also, please include a descriptive RFD so we know why you voted like you did. No vague or unreasonable votes, please.

Debate Settings
Argument Time: 72 Hours
Voting: 7 Points, Open
Voting Period: 2 Weeks



I'm looking forward to a great debate!
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept to debate this topic with you.

I will be arguing for, instead of maintaining the current system, to completely abolish the electoral college, make the president elected by the popular vote, and change the system from First past the post voting to instant-runoff voting.

I don't believe any definitions need to be provided for, other than perhaps I should define instant-runoff voting in case you do not know what it is:

Instant run-off voting is a type of ranked preference voting in which instant run-offs occur between candidates. In the process, whoever comes in last in votes, they are removed from the process in an instant run-off, and their votes get transfered over to the voters' second choice. This process repeats until some candidate has a majority of votes. If someone had a majority in the first round, then there are no instant run-offs and that person just becomes president.
Debate Round No. 1
Hylian_3000

Pro

Introduction

1. The debate has nothing to do with Voting Systems
The debate is about the electoral college, not about voting systems. We will not be debating whether or not we should keep the First-Past the Post system. Any arguments pertaining to voting systems are irrelevant and should not be considered while voting.


2. Counterplan does not apply
I said in Round 1 that the debate will be whether or not the plan I'm proposing will be better than the Status Quo (current system). If my opponent proves that abolishing the Electoral College would be better than my plan, I would still win if my plan is proved to be beneficial to the United States.


Opening Statement

Changing the Electoral College to distribute their votes by how many people voted for each candidate is ultimately better than the current winner take all system.
The current system promotes bad campaigning and lets losers win. The plan I'm proposing will not break from the Electoral College system that was established by The Constitution, but will make elections fairer and will encourage better campaigning from candidates.

Arguments


Why Winner Take All is Bad

1.The current system allows losers to win
Candidates who lost the popular vote have won the electoral college 5 times in the history of the United States [1]. The 5 presidents who have won the presidency but lost the popular vote are John Quincy Adams (He actually didn't win the Electoral College either), Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Why? The
winner take all system unfairly distributes votes to each candidate. This is a failure of democracy. Why would the person who lost the vote of the people win the presidency because they won the Electoral College because of its winner take all system which undermines democracy.

2. Winner take all does not fairly represent the people
Imagine you and your 9 friends are at a restaurant. You and 3 of your friends buy the fried chicken, while the other 6 buy steak. When the waiter brings your food, to your surprise, he gives all of you steak because more people wanted it! This analogy shows the fundamental flaw of the winner take all: Even if you vote for another candidate, your vote could go to the opposing candidate anyway. This doesn't make any sense! What's the point of voting if your vote will go to the other candidate anyway? Now, in a fair democracy, your vote should count toward the candidate you voted for, but your vote doesn't count if the opposing candidate gets more votes. All of your state's votes go to the opposing candidate anyway. The current system makes Republican Californians and Democrat Texans represent someone they didn't vote for.

3. Winner take all encourages unequal campaigning
One of the basic ideas of the Electoral college is that it gives smaller states more power and forces candidates to distribute their visits more fairly, not just in the big states. While the Electoral College succeeds in giving smaller states more power, it fails in the latter. Here is a graph of the amount of visits given to each state in the last 2 months of the 2012 campaign:

Number of visits to each state by 2012 presidential candidates in the last 2 months.

As you can see, it's not even close to being fair. There's not even close to all 50 states on that graph, and only the first couple states on the graph got a ton more visits than the rest of the states. This is because winner takes all lets candidates safely ignore states where it's certain they won't get the majority of votes in. This means that they'll only visit states that have really close races, namely states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. You'll rarely see democratic candidates campaign in Montana, and republican candidates campaign in New York. This is because it would just be a waste of time.

4. Winner take all discourages voters
Have you ever heard your friends say, "I'm not voting because my vote doesn't matter". That sounds ridiculously unguided and wrong, but there is some truth to that statement. As of November 10, 2016, voter turnout was estimated to be at an abysmal 55% [2]. Obviously that number has probably gotten higher as time went on, but according to CNN it would take another 18.7 million votes to reach the high point for turnout of 2008, when nearly 64% of voting age citizens cast a ballot. So that proves that the voter turnout percentage wouldn't have changed that much since November.

My point is that the current system discourages voters because their vote really doesn't matter in certain states. For example, a democratic vote in Texas wouldn't matter that much, as the overwhelming majority of voters in Texas are Republican. Therefore, voters who vote against the overwhelming majority will simply not vote, as they know that their vote really doesn't matter in the end.

Why We Should Keep the Electoral College

Even though I've already said that Counterplans do not apply to this debate, I will make these arguments just to strengthen my case more and erase more doubt within the judges.

5. Electoral College is a 2nd line of defense
One of the reasons we use the Electoral College is so it acts a second line of defense against a purely unqualified and ultimately bad candidate. When the Founding Fathers created the Electoral College, they knew that sometimes the people would not make the best decision. One of the biggest points of the Electoral College is to protect America from misguided votes. Abolishing the Electoral College would get rid of that defense, as the Electors can no longer switch the vote. The people would have complete power over the matter of electing leaders, and they may end up electing someone terrible for president. The electoral college protects against this by giving Electors the last say. The Electors can tell if a candidate is horrible and defend America from a truly terrible president; something that the people cannot.

6. Electoral College gives small states more power
The way the electoral votes are distributed among the states gives small states more power and importance. Every state immediately gets 2 electoral votes for the 2 senators, and the rest are distributed by the total number of congressional districts [3]. This gives small states more power, since they get 2 more votes than they really technically should. For example, if the votes were distributed based on population, Wyoming would only have a lowly 1 electoral vote. That's not enough electoral votes for candidates to care about those states. Other small states would only get 1 or 2 electoral votes, making candidates ignore most of the small states in favor of the big states. This is another reason why we shouldn't abolish the electoral college, but just change it.

Why My Plan is Beneficial

7. Plan makes party minorities in "solid blue" or "solid red" states count, and promotes more equal campaigning
As explained above, the current system makes Democrats in Texas or Republicans in California irrelevant. Distributing electoral votes based on the percent of people who voted for each candidate in a state makes those voters count! For example, in California there are 55 votes [4]. In the 2016 election, 61% voted for Clinton, while 32.8% voted for Trump. In the current system, Clinton wins all 55 electoral votes, effectively disregarding the people who voted for Trump. Using my plan, Clinton would win 34 electoral votes, while Trump would win 21 electoral votes. (Third-parties don't have enough votes). As you can see, this makes the Republicans in California count a lot. That's 21 more electoral votes to Trump! That's a big deal!

This also makes candidates take trips to traditionally solid blue or solid red states, because they can get more electoral votes from these states under the new system. The swing states don't matter that much anymore.

8. Plan encourages voting
My plan effectively encourages voting. Since votes are now distributed by how many people voted for each candidate in a state, your democratic vote in Texas now matters! Now that you know that even if you're the minority in your state, but can still give an electoral vote to your candidate, you would want to go out and vote! Party minority voters within traditional solid blue or red states matter under the new system. They can influence the election.

9. Plan makes electoral votes represent the people
The votes are distributed by proportion, therefore the votes given to each candidate now represents the people. If you have 60% Democrat votes and 40% Republican votes, 60% of the electoral votes will go to the Democrats, while 40% would go to the Republicans. This is representative of the people.

10. Plan makes losers lose
The reason why losers win in the current system is because they can win 50.1% of the vote and get 100% of the electoral votes and the winners can get 90% of the vote in a state, but still only win the same amount of electoral votes they would've won if they got 51% of the vote. This means states with overwhelming amounts of Democrats or Republicans devalues the votes of the people in that state, as once they get over 50% additional votes don't matter. This means that a candidate could theoretically win the current Electoral College by winning 50.1% of the vote in small states where they poll with closer margins, because even if you win 99% of the popular vote in a big state, you don't get more electoral votes than you would've with 50.1%.


Sources
[1]:
http://www.factcheck.org...
[2]: http://www.cnn.com...
[3]: https://www.archives.gov...
[4]: http://state.1keydata.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

As my opponent agreed to in the comments, I can argue for abolishing the electoral college altogether, and explain why their proposed plan is worse than that.


The problems with the electoral college


1. Losers could still win with a proportional electoral college
Imagine in this case, since the electoral college over-represents smaller states, and under-represents larger states, the loser of the popular vote could still win the electoral college under a proportional electoral college system. Wyoming, Alaska, and a number of other states should have 1 vote or only 2 votes for it to be proportional to the percentage of the popular vote that they contain. The fact that these states have 3 or 4, means that if a candidate were to get a large majority in these states, they get 2 votes or 3 votes, when they should have gotten 1 or 2 votes. Then in a state like California which is missing 10 electoral votes that it should have if the votes were distributed by population only, that also throws things off-balance since the winning candidate could have gotten more votes from California. In addition, only 18% of people live in rural areas in the United States[1]. With how the electoral college is distributed, rural states are given much more representation they should be, Idaho gets 4 electoral votes, when they should have 2, Wyoming gets 3, when they should have 1 and so forth.


2. Proportional voting doesn't completely and fairly represent the people
Because the number of electoral votes a state has is so small in comparison to the number of people living in that state, you can't have a perfect proportional system all the time. For example, suppose 57% of people voted for candidate A and 43% for Candidate B in a state. The state has 20 electoral votes. 11 goes to Candidate A, because 11/20 is the closest proportion to 57%, and 9/20 goes to candidate B. Unfortunately, Candidate A only got 55% of the electoral votes, even though they received 57% of the popular vote, and Candidate B received 45% of the electoral vote in that state, but only got 43% of the popular vote. So, the people who voted for the losing candidate is a little more represented than those who voted for the winning candidate, which could throw things off and make the losing candidate win over all in the electoral college if this happens several times. This problem gets worse as the state has less electoral votes.


3. It is subjective whether the electoral college protects us from getting unqualified candidates
To many people, President-elect Donald Trump would have been considered unqualified, and the electoral college clearly did nothing to prevent him from gaining office. Again, this is subjective opinion though. To others, his business leadership qualifies him to be president. Since it's really a matter of opinion whether a candidate is a good candidate or a qualified candidate to be president, it would make sense to have a direct popular voting system. People, in general, wouldn't vote for a candidate if they personally believed a candidate was not qualified for the job. So, if someone gets the most popular votes, that means that most people believe that candidate was the most qualified. What authority does the electoral college have over the people for determining who is qualified and who is a bad versus a good candidate? All we're doing is changing whose subjective opinion is determining who is more qualified, some 538 electors are doing it now, whereas we could have over a hundred million voters do it. If you ask me, it would be better for more people to determine it because it is more likely that 538 people will put in the wrong candidate than tens of millions of people.

Defending a direct popular vote

4. Refuting the common claim that a direct popular vote would result in candidates caring only about big cities
It is often claimed that we have the electoral college in order for candidates to pay attention to the small states and not only pay attention to large cities. However, if you look at how each city is, the top 100 largest cities don't even make up 20% of the US population.[2] You can't win by getting a majority of 20% of the votes.

5. America values democracy
As is evident by how we changed how senators are elected with the 17th amendment making them directly elected by the people, we clearly value democracy. To expand this value, it would make sense to make the president directly elected by the people as well and to abolish the electoral college altogether as it hinders democracy.


Sources:
[1] http://data.worldbank.org...
[2] https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Hylian_3000

Pro

I agreed to letting him debate about his counterplan.

Rebuttals

Why my plan benefits the US

1. Plan makes the probability of a loser winning abysmal.
While it may be true that losers still could potentially win in a proportional system, the chances of it happening is minuscule. Keeping the current system keeps the probability of a loser winning high, and abolishing the electoral college would bring too many negatives with it (more on that later). For a candidate to win the electoral college without winning the popular vote in a proportional system, they would have to: A. Win 100% of all the votes in states with more electoral votes than they should have and B. Somehow make their opponent only win bigger states by a large margin. This would in turn make it so the candidate would earn more electoral votes than popular votes. However, this scenario is highly unlikely since most of the time both candidates would earn electoral votes from those small states, candidates will probably never earn all the votes in those smaller states, and both candidates would earn votes from bigger states too. My opponent's argument is based off the winner-take-all system, since it relies on the fact that one candidate would win almost 100% of all the votes in the small states. He also ignores the fact that the candidate would also earn votes from the bigger states too. My opponent's argument is nullified under a proportional system.

2. Small states should get those extra votes
The issue with my opponent's argument is that he fails to see the purpose of giving the small states more power in the electoral college. Without the electoral college, candidates wouldn't care about smaller states and their concerns. Rather, they would only focus on bigger states and their concerns, pandering to those states. Therefore, smaller states would never get their issues addressed and their voices heard, as the candidates don't care about those states. The electoral college makes it so candidates that are only popular in a couple big states lose, since our presidents should be appealing to most of America [1]. For example, if a candidate is popular in California and Texas and a couple other bigger states in a popular vote system, they would earn most of the votes they would need. However, he's only popular in those regions, and the rest of the world resents the candidate, as he doesn't stand for those states' beliefs. The electoral college forces a candidate to appeal to most of the country, rather than a couple key big states.

3. Proportional voting represents the people much better than the current system
As explained in my previous argument, the plan would represent the people much better than the winner take all system, and my opponent does nothing to contest this. It is obvious that a direct vote would be more representative, but a direct vote would be disastrous (more on that later).

4. Having a defense is better than none at all
Tell me, even if the electoral college hasn't defended us from a bad candidate anything yet, would you rather not have a defense at all? A candidate so bad that it merits the electoral college voting for someone else hasn't come along yet, but it doesn't mean it never will. What my opponent is proposing, is that since it hasn't done anything yet to defend us, we should get rid of it. We might as well have a defense, even if it hasn't done anything yet. Many people viewed Trump as unqualified, but he obviously was appealing to enough of the political insiders that make up the electoral college. It's better to have a 2nd line of defense in the event of a truly terrible candidate, instead of none at all.

5. Opponent concedes that plan promotes fairer campaigning.
This argument wasn't contested in my opponent's last argument. Therefore, he concedes the fact that my plan would promote fairer campaigning. Don't let him make an argument about this in the next round, as he had already conceded it in round 2.

6. Opponent concedes that plan makes party minorities matter
This argument wasn't contested by my opponent in his last argument either. Therefore, he concedes that my plan makes party minorities in traditionally "solid blue" or "solid red" states matter. Also don't let him make an argument about this in the next round, because he had already conceded it in round 2.

7. Opponent concedes that plan encourages voting
This argument wasn't contested by the opponent. Therefore, he concedes that my plan encourages voting by making people's vote count more. Don't let him make any more arguments about it because he conceded it previously.

Why a Popular Vote is Bad

8. It's not big cities, it's large, metropolitan areas
My opponent is correct in stating that just winning the big cities wouldn't win you the presidency. However, winning most of the metropolitan areas of America would definitely win you the presidency. The major metropolitan areas don't even come close to being spread out across the country, they are small, concentrated areas where a lot of people live.
The picture speaks for itself. Additionally, as stated before, this would cause candidates to not care about smaller states, so their concerns wouldn't be addressed. A popular vote would let candidates who are only popular in small parts of the country win.

9. America wants small states to have some power.
Yes, America values democracy. However, it is also evident that America also wants small states to have some power (reasons why that's good stated above). How is it evident you ask? Well, the Senate is proof that America values small states. Why? Every state has 2 senators in the Senate. This is so small states still have power in congress, and get their issues addressed. If Congress was run purely on population, namely the House of Representatives, the smaller states would be irrelevant. Small state issues still matter. The Senate and House were made as a compromise between the big states and the small states. The small states wanted everyone to have equal say, and the big states wanted power distributed by population. The government made a compromise, and created both, so the small and big states would both matter. The Senate proves that America still wants small states to have power. The Electoral College helps with that, by giving small states more power in the election than they technically should, in order to get their voice heard. A direct vote makes small states irrelevant, making candidates only care about issues in big states and also makes them pander to big states at expense of the small states.

Arguments

10. Changing how votes are awarded is much easier to do than to abolish the electoral college
Fiat doesn't apply to counterplan. We can still debate whether or not the counterplan would pass.
In order to abolish the electoral college, we would have to amend the Constitution. That takes a whole lot of work, and is unlikely to pass. To amend the constitution, you need to first gain 2/3 support from both the House and the Senate, and then win the support of 3/4 of the states. [2] That's too hard. However, in order to change how votes are distributed, you would just need to get the states to change how they award votes. In fact, two states use a different system to award electoral votes: Nebraska and Maine. They have a Congressional District system, where the candidates get votes based on who won the most congressional districts, on top of the popular vote [3]. The Constitution doesn't say how votes should be awarded, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the states' role in awarding electoral votes is "supreme." [3]. Therefore, all we would need to do to change how the Electoral College works, is to just get the states to award the electoral votes based on proportion. This is much easier than amending the Constitution.

Sources
[1]: https://www.cato.org...
[2]: http://occasionalplanet.org...
[3]: http://uspolitics.about.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

1. Plan makes the probability of a loser winning abysmal, but it still exists.
Well, as I pointed out, the smaller the state, the less proportional it will be because the numbers are smaller for the electoral college. The fact still is that there is a chance a losing candidate of the popular vote could win, albeit it would be with much smaller margins than we've seen, it could still happen. The fact that the chances are small is irrelevant. As long as the chance exists, why should it be tolerated? For example, let's suppose you were to have a surgery, and there were two options for it. One of them has a 1% chance of you dying still, but the other has a 0% chance. Why would you take the one that still has a chance, albeit a small one, that you would die?

2. Small states should not get those extra votes
Candidates already don't pay attention to small states, how would a proportional electoral college fix that? Literally the only small state that received even a single visit from candidates in 2016, was New Hampshire. [3] The area with the most small states(rocky mountain area and states east of it) didn't receive any visits from candidates, so your point is void. The electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states to begin with. In fact, not only are the smaller states ignored, but the largest states: New York, California, and Texas are mostly ignored under the electoral college system. Is it really a good thing for a candidate to ignore the most people there are out there? Wouldn't it be a good thing for candidates to listen to the areas with the greatest amount of people since we value democracy?

3. 5, 6, 7:
Yes, these points are true, even I concede that a proportional electoral college would be better than what we currently have, but I'm not arguing against that, as agreed to in comments, you said I could argue for getting rid of the electoral college altogether. I'm arguing that would be better than having a proportional electoral college. Basically a proportional electoral college is "good" but getting rid of it is "best".

4. What is it defending us from?
I question whether this defense is even necessary, again, as I pointed out: who is more likely to mess up: Tens of millions of people, or 538 people? Also, who is easier to bribe or coerce? Tens of millions, or 538? The electoral college isn't protecting us, it's making it more likely we will have a terrible candidate. Unless you can explain how it's more likely that tens of millions of people will put up a terrible candidate than 538, I don't see how you can argue it is defending us. Now this may be off-topic, but I would argue a better line of defense would be to allow presidential recalls from the people. If the candidate is truly bad, then the people should be allowed to recall them.

8. Metropolitan areas
First of all, what are the chances of someone winning 100% of the votes in all of the metropolitan areas? It's never been done before, in addition, the person would have to get none of the votes in the grey areas for this arguement to be valid. There is literally no chance of that happening since people of all political persuasions live everywhere. Sure, some areas have a larger amount of liberals and some have more conservatives. Generally, the metropolitan areas have more liberals and the rural areas have more conservatives. However, both also have the opposite ideology, none of them are 100% conservative or 100% liberal. I don't see why we should make the people's votes in metropolitan areas count less than the votes in the areas that are rural. That's what you're doing, you're essentially destroying the idea of one person one vote since in reality, people in Wyoming have more voting power than those in California. How is it fair to make it that some people's votes count less just because they were unfortunate enough to live in a specific area?

9. Does America really want small states to have power?
As pointed out before, the small states still have no power essentially in deciding who is president, that is why they are completely ignored for the most part during presidential campaigns. The electoral college is doing a terrible job at what you're saying it's supposed to be doing, which is giving small states more say.

I would challenge that America values small states though. We may have at one time, but I don't think it is true anymore. Majority of Americans(63%) support abolishing the Electoral college [4] And while I did try looking for what percent of Americans want the senate to be abolished(I could not find that number anywhere, perhaps my opponent might be able to find it), they do certainly want to limit it's power by imposing term limits on them [4]. In addition, we had the 17th amendment passed, which if we valued small states, we wouldn't have passed that amendment since that makes the senate no longer representative of a state, but rather of the people of that state. We've been moving toward a more democratic country, and less about states in general. In addition, the civil war was all about this issue of states versus democracy. While it wasn't exactly small states versus large states, it was about what the majority wanted versus the minority in certain states.

10. Abolishing the electoral college may pass
Since 63% of Americans, as pointed out before, support abolishing the electoral college, we would only need to organize those people and get them to vote in state legislatures who also have their opinion. Granted, we do have a system that highly favors certain individuals getting in office, I believe it is very possible if we put our minds to it. Plus, in a way, it might be harder to do what my opponent suggests. We could do it in some states, perhaps, but would all of them vote to do it this way? In order for it to change to a proportional system for the whole country, every state would need to change their rules. Good luck on getting all 50 to do that. Whereas, with the suggestion to end the electoral college, only 2/3 of states need to agree. It may be easier to get 2/3 of states to agree on a more radical idea, since majority of Americans support it, than on a less radical idea that all states have to agree with.
Sources:
[3] http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...;
[4] http://www.gallup.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
Hylian_3000

Pro

I won't post anything this round because of the rules.
Capitalistslave

Con

Well, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say here since I already responded to pro's round 3 arguments, and pro did not post anything else in round 4.


I suppose I'll just re-affirm some things I said before:

As stated before, albeit small, there is still a chance under pro's proposed system that the loser of the popular vote can still win the electoral college because of small states being over-represented and large states being under-represented still under pro's proposed system.

With the electoral college, it doesn't seem to be protecting us at all, as pointed out, and it seems less likely that 538 people will get the right president in than tens of millions. In addition, it would be easier to bribe tens of people, than tens of millions to alter the outcome of the election.

The idea of one person one vote is violated with the electoral college, and would still be violated with pro's proposed plan, as small states will be more represented than large states.

It would seem that it may not be a value of American people to be in favor of small states having more power, since majority want to abolish the electoral college, and want to limits the senate's power.

I believe that summarized my previous arguments, and will end here.
Debate Round No. 4
Hylian_3000

Pro

Just a reminder to voters that if you say any slight, significant hole in my case, you must vote Con. This is vital to keeping the debate fair, as Pro has both first and last say. Please keep this debate fair toward both participants, even if I have the first and last say.

With that, I will begin my rebuttals here.

Rebuttals

1. Plan lessens chance of losers winning, and is overall better than a direct vote.
My opponent's argument is based off the fact that a direct vote would be better than a proportional electoral college. He concedes that my plan is betterr than the current system in regards to making losers lose.
Using his surgery analogy against him, let's say that you have 2 choices. 1 choice has a 1% chance of death and will leave you with a headache for a couple days, the other option has 0% chance of death, but will leave you either paralyzed or will render you mute. Which one would you choose then? I think the choice is obvious. Obviously death is bad, but a 1% chance with just a headache is much better than a 0% chance, but living you permanently disabled and hurt. Choose the plan that lessens the chance of the loser winning, and is better for the country in general. My opponent's argument is void because a direct vote would be much worse than my plan in other aspects, and it would be a disaster for the USA.

2. Small states require those extra votes to remain relevant in the election
My opponents argument doesn't have any basis in a proportional electoral college. He cites events that happened in the past, but those are using the winner take all system. The reason why candidates didn't bother with the small states, as well as the bigger ones, is because most of the small states are solid red, which means campaigning there would be useless under the winner take all system. It's the same scenario with bigger states. The big states were also, for the most part, solid blue or red. Again, under the current system, it's a waste of time to go to those states because of the ratio of Democrats to Republicans.
My opponent cites the 1 candidate visit to New Hampshire. The reason why New Hampshire was even visited at all was because it was a light swing state. Imagine if New Hampshire had 1 or 2 votes, do you think the candidates would care if they won or lost New Hampshire? Since New Hampshire has 4 votes [1], candidates actually care about tit. Imagine how many more states would get visits under a proportional system. Since the states would split their Electoral Votes under the proportional system, candidates would have a reason to visit smaller states more. In fact, my opponent conceded that my plan promotes more equal and fairer campaigning than the current system. This means that candidates would go and visit those states, because they have valuable Electoral Votes and, even if it's a solid red or blue state, can still win some of those electoral votes.
My opponent claims it would be better if candidates were to just listen to the more highly populated areas. However, as I stated in my last argument, people in smaller states have different concerns and issues. If the candidates were to only visit highly populated areas, those smaller states and their peoples' problems would be ignored and never addressed. A candidate needs to take into account the entire nation's problems, from the big states to the small states. Small states also need to have their concerns addressed, and the current system as well as a direct vote system would let candidates ignore small states' concerns.
Additionally, a proportional system would also make candidates visit large states too, as they can get votes from those larger states, regardless of whether or not the state is either solid or a swing state.
Basically, my opponent's argument has no basis in a proportional electoral college. They only apply to a winner-take-all system.

3, 5, 6, 7 were conceded

4. The Electors are political insiders
My opponent argues that millions of ordinary people would make better decisions than 538 people. On the surface this argument makes sense. However, if you look deeper, it has no basis. My opponent makes it seem like the 538 Electors are just like the rest of the millions of people who live in America. But, those Electors are political insiders who know better than the populace. The process for electing Electors start with the state party leaders and members coming together and voting for electors. Then, during the election, the people cast their vote for which candidate they support the most. The candidate that wins the most votes in that state (in the winner take all system) makes the state send their party's electors to elect the president [2]. As we can see, these 538 electors are much more informed and qualified than the normal population, and can prevent a terrible candidate from coming into office.
Additionally, under a proportional system, the electors can still defend us from terrible candidates, while still representing the people.
Electors are much more qualified and have better judgement than the average American, since they are political insiders chosen by the political parties.

8. Metropolitan areas lean 1 party and makes candidates ignore small states.
My opponent is correct in saying that there's no way 1 candidate could win 100% all those metropolitan areas. However, just like my opponent says, metropolitan areas tend to be very liberal. This isn't fair for the conservatives who live in smaller states who need to have their voices heard. Again, small states deserve to have their issues and concerns addressed, a direct vote lets candidates ignore small states' problems.
<a href=http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...; />
This is a map of the counties after the 2012 election. If you compare this map with the previous map showing the metropolitan areas you will see that most of the metropolitan areas are blue! This definitely undercuts republican voters in smaller states, as they need their issues addressed, but will get ignored under a direct vote. Additionally, they will never have a say in the election under a direct vote, since they don't have a lot of people. But just because they don't have a lot of people doesn't mean their concerns are less valid than the rest.

9. The Senate still proves that America still values small states
Even if we passed the 17th amendment, it does not change the fact that the Senate is meant to give small states adequate say in the Congress. The Senate is necessary for the small states to get their voices heard and their issues pondered.
We also imposed term limits on the President, this term limit argument does not pertain to the issue.
The whole point of having the Senate is so the people in those small states have a say. Whether or not the senators represent the state or the people do not matter. What matters is that the Senate enables the people in the small states to have their issues addressed.
The Civil War's purpose is unclear, and is debated between many historians. My opponent does not even give a source to support his claim.

10. It would be much harder to abolish the Electoral College
As stated above, in order to amend the constitution we would need to both gain 2/3 support from both houses of Congress, then get 3/4 of the states to support it. I doubt that the Conservative congress, let alone 2/3 of both houses, will let the amendment get through, considering that they just won the presidency this year by exploiting the electoral college. It's much harder to get congressmen AND states to agree on something in comparison to just getting the states to award their electoral votes differently.
My opponent tries to say that 63% of Americans is enough to get the Congress and the States to amend the constitution if we "put our minds to it". This is just ridiculous in reality. Only 63% of the normal, everyday people won't be enough to get 3/4 of the states to support the idea of abolishing the electoral college, let alone Congress.

Closing
In conclusion, we should introduce a proportional system to replace the current winner take all system because of the following reasons:
1. It makes the chance of losers winning abysmal
2. It promotes fairer campaigning
3. It makes party minorities and certain states count
4. The electoral college protects us from terrible presidents, which a direct vote doesn't do.
5. It represents the people much better than the current system
6. It lets the small states have a say and get their issues concerns, unlike a direct vote.
7. It's much easier to pass than abolishing the electoral college
8. It encourages voters to vote

At the end of the day, you can say why a proportional Electoral College is much better than a winner take all system, and that it's much better than abolishing the electoral college. This is why I must ask you, judges, for your vote.

Thanks to my opponent, Capitalistslave for an amazing debate. Also thanks to the readers for reading the whole debate. We now must trust the judges to make the right decision.

Once again, thank you for a great debate, and may I wish you good luck on your future debates.


Sources
[1]: http://www.270towin.com...
[2]: https://www.archives.gov...



Capitalistslave

Con

As agreed upon, I will waive this round
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
I'm structuring the debate similar to a policy debate, where the Affirmative (Pro) would have both the first and last argument, with the Negative (Con) having a large, interrupted block of time in the middle. This is because Pro has to defend all his points or he loses the debate, and if Con were to have the last say it would be impossible for Pro to defend any of his points after it, since it was the last argument. Reminder that Con doesn't really have to prove anything other than my proposed plan having no impact or being worse than the current system. Con could simply win because they proved that the plan wouldn't do anything significant. Con just chose to propose his own plan.
Pro has the first and last say because if there is a sliver of doubt or one of his points are refuted, he loses the debate. This debate structure is to allow Pro to defend his points, so he's not ending the debate with a bunch of holes in his argument.

Thanks for providing your opinion, EverlastingMoment. It's very much appreciated and gives me a reason to justify why the debate is structured like it is.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
Just to quickly add on, I understand that the BoP is on Pro and it is his duty to provide the voters with an effective and robust case, but that can all be done without the need to have to remove the traditional system in which con would have the final say in the debate.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
I like how this debate is going, but I have to say I do express distaste for the way this debate is structured. Pro being able to have the first AND last say in the debate in my mind gives him an advantage, however slight it may be, towards swaying the voters to his side as he has both the opportunity of being able to be the first one to present his arguments and focus on rebuttals and then have the last say in the debate. Although it may be similar in some ways to British Parliamentary Style debating the difference here is that Pro has the last round to make rebuttals, as in BPS if Pro does have the first and last say in the debate the last round can only be a summary and not a rebuttal speech.

I mean, all being said this is just my personal opinion in the end but that's why I think that in certain ways this is potentially unfair to con.
Otherwise, good debate so far.
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
No, it's fine. You were supposed to be able to respond to the previous rounds in the Second Constructive.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Wait, did I accidentally break the round structure? I realized I responded to one of your rounds with my round 3. If so, maybe I could instead just switch round 3 and 4, and have my second constructive in round 4.
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
I'll wait for the time limit to be almost over to give you more time to prepare
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
It's fine, take your time!
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Alright then, I may not be able to reply until another day from now, sorry that it's taking so long, it's just since it's practically Christmas, I'll be rather busy. I might be able to reply within the next 10-20 minutes, but we'll see. I may not do it since I probably won't have sufficient time today to argue well.
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
As you could tell via the comments, I'm all for abolishing the Electoral College, so this will be interesting.

Just make sure to state in Round 2 that I said that it was ok to advocate for abolishing the electoral college
Posted by Hylian_3000 1 year ago
Hylian_3000
You can go ahead and argue for abolishing the Electoral College too. Just don't argue about changing the voting system, as that's not relevant to the debate.

Sorry for any vague information in Round 1, I tried my best to make it as specific as possible, but we all make mistakes!
No votes have been placed for this debate.