The Electoral College is a more fitting system for the United States of America than popular vote
Debate Rounds (3)
Round 1: State the rules
Round 2: Affirmative Constructive
Round 3: Affirmative Rebuttal
Round 1: State position and acceptance of debate (for instance, "I am for the popular vote and accept this debate)
Round 2: Negative Constructive
Round 3: Negative Rebuttal
Many voting machines, in the United States, are rigged . In order to prevent such fraud from scaling to a national level, we must first stop rigged votes in the states.
Dead people can be placed into the election process not by others, and the vote still remains valid . We can prevent this fraud from reaching a national level with the electoral college.
Popular vote, as being a direct democracy, is unconstitutional! These persons are trying to form something of a democracy from us, the matter of which is unsanctioned by our forefathers. How dare those vouching against this system consider such an injustice, as the constitution has not had such an unreasonable change, as to change what we are governing ourselves with.
The electoral college amplifies the votes and opinions of minorities as majorities in some states although minorities when placed on a national scale, contrast hispanics percent in New Mexico and in the United States as a whole. Over 45% of the state of New Mexico is hispanic. The hispanic opinions are amplified by the entire state's votes being in a great deal, what they believe is best for themselves as a region of the United States of America.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." said Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787. We can stop the whims of many voters on a state level before that of national.
This is the will of the state in general, and nothing less. Every single vote counting, from the nation as a whole, is not what our country stands for. The majority of a state does represent the will of the state. Voting to find what the majority of the state believes, is the best way to find what is best for the state. It counts out a great many of the votes cast by those who know little to nothing about politics, nor do those persons care to any extent in many situations. States are, in many cases, with different markets and political ideals from one another, and for each person to speak up... you might as well be a Union supporter in Georgia during the civil war. Your opinion is not for the good of the state, but what the good of the state is, shalt be what a majority of its population agrees upon, exemplified by chosen representatives who meet with other persons who represent the different views of their states!
 (the video of a 2012 voting machine)
 (the video of Ron Paul testimony)
WilliamsP forfeited this round.
Now, to make my argument:
The popular vote is not only simpler, but it is also more democratic. The popular vote is much simpler due to the votes having to simply be added together. The rigged votes can be prevented with more regulations and controls. I recognize the flaws of the popular vote and I see the advantages of the Electoral College, but I also hope you acknowledge the fact that the popular vote is indeed on the side of true justice.
In 2000, Gore and Bush had a dispute over the votes. Bush won the electoral votes and Gore won the popular vote. If a larger portion of people wish to have one candidate but get the other instead, that is injustice. If we eradicated the Electoral College, there wouldn't be as many vote disputes and there would most certainly not be issues of democracy. I understand that the United States is in fact a republic, not a democracy. But by "democracy", I am addressing the issue of voting.
Now, if a majority of people in a state support a candidate and that state's electoral votes go to that candidate, what shall become of the people who supported the other candidate? Their voices are unheard and their opinions are not acknowledged. That, my friend, is injustice.
I would like to point out that I did not cite my sources. But the truth is, my friend, citing sources doesn't automatically make you win a debate. Instead of using websites, you can use logical reasoning.
Now, the debate shall be decided by the voters. To the voters, I say this: Please read the debate entirely before voting. There are some important points in here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF. Convincing Argument: Without rebuttals being an option, I can't vote this to anyone. Sources: Pro had many of them.
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.