The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government.
Debate Rounds (4)
I will take the pro position. and I will propose an alternate system to the status quo.
Con must defend the current system and negate the proposed alternate system.
I would like to start by defining my argument with three contentions.
First, the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. Second, the electoral college allows presidents to win without the popular vote. Finally, the electoral college puts too much importance in campaigning in swing states.
Many voters don't like the electoral college. Gallup polls show that over the years the desire for a popular vote over the electoral college in America have gone up and up. Currently, 62% of Americans are in favor of the popular vote as opposed to using the electoral college in the presidential election, while only 35% of Americans prefer the electoral college (1).
There are four primary instances in history where a candidate won the people's hearts but lost the election. "Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000)." (2). Four is four too many if you ask me. Being in a state that always votes against your party means that come election time your vote doesn't even matter, because the electoral vote will go to the other candidate either way.
Finally, I contend that too much focus is put on swing states during presidential elections. This is of course because usually the way many state's electoral votes will go is obvious. Texas has voted republican consistently for years and California is an assured win for the democrats. This means that campaigning in these states is useless because the votes are guaranteed. It is for this reason that the campaign spending in Ohio was massive for both candidates, whilst spending in states like Alabama was almost non existent.
My point is clear. The electoral college detracts from democracy.
I await my opponents response eagerly.
Some counter contentions
If the voters do not like the electoral college this is not reason for how the electoral college suppresses voter turnout.
History can't be argued with. In the dates you mention, these are instances where the electoral college prevented the popular leader from being elected. There have been 44 presidents thus far and only 4 have been nominated that were not of the popular vote. Each of these elections were rather close and have some controversy behind them.
If one needed only the popular vote to win, it would not be required to have a majority. This is what the founders feared. They wanted to ensure that it was required a majority in order to win the election. This is one of the reasons in why we have the electoral college today(1).
If the electoral college was disbanded, this would shift the focus from swing states, to the areas which are most populous, at a disadvantage to those that are least populous. Presidential candidates may also decide to focus on those areas where they have a great deal more supporters and focus less on those areas which are more divided.
The electoral college does not detract from the democracy of this nation, but enhances it.
Thank you, I anticipate the response.
The electoral college does indeed suppress voter turnout because: Voters disapprove of it. Votes are much higher in "swing states." (1) (2)
My opponent claims the elections mentioned to be controversial but provides no proof to indicate this. He goes on to say that the founding fathers intended to ensure a majority opinion of the populous in voting but this is totally contradicted by the fact that 4 presidents were not elected when more people voted for an opponent. If an opponent had the popular vote he would simply have received the most votes from the people. The electoral college does not insure any kind of wide margin of victory in any election.
If the electoral college was disbanded, indeed the focus of campaigning would be any area with high population. This includes way more states than just a few swing states. Almost every single state in America has some kind of metropolitan area where campaigning would be ideal, thus increasing the spread of spending.
Although I appreciate my opponents effort, his contentions are clearly here refuted by my contentions.
junior_dominator forfeited this round.
I hope my opponent will return to this debate.
junior_dominator forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.