The Instigator
Schwetzky
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Brenavia
Pro (for)
Winning
3 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 1 vote the winner is...
Brenavia
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,331 times Debate No: 19594
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Schwetzky

Con

For the purpose of this debate, I am going to abbreviate "Electoral College" as EC.

The Electoral College does many more right than wrong.

Point #1

The EC narrows down and speeds up the process of electing a president. Honestly, how much time would it really take to count every single individual vote? About 9-10 YEARS!!! A president isn't even allowed to stay president that long. A president can only stay president 1 term, and only if re-elected can serve another term. Then he must step down for 1 term then he may stay in office another four years and then he is done. Let's say a president IS re-elected. that leaves two years of what? It couldn't be good. Plus, what happens if a recount is demanded? The government would completely out-of-whack.

Source of presidency- Paul Jackson of JustAnswer.com

Point #2

The EC chooses the better candidate for president. For example, let's say candidate John Dough runs for president and in his speeches he says he will do all these amazing things that some presidents actually promise in real life, such as Obama. He promised our taxes will reduce. He promised our pricey gas issues will be resolved. But look what happened. GOOSE EGG. NOTHING. 0. But, the EC prevents this from happening. Now, I am NOT saying that the EC is perfect.

Point #3

The EC keeps our sacred Republic in America. We are not a democracy. As a republic we elect a smaller group of people to help us vote the right choice. Taking away the EC is taking our decently formed Republic and tearing it apart. We took the Idea of the Republic from Rome. In Rome, it collapsed and ruined the empire for a long time. Is that what we are destined for? Well, without an EC, it is.

I would like to conclude with restating my points. With an EC, we have a very efficient way of voting, the majority of the time guarentees good president that will do for the better of America and keeps our amazing republic.

Vote Pro.
Brenavia

Pro

I'll take this debate, and though I agree with the Con side it is always good to see from the other side's view. Good luck to my opponent.

I will first address my opponent's arguments, then create my own.

Point #1: I believe that 9-10 is an extreme exaggeration. With modern technology and contemporary voter registration, is has becoming increasingly easier to count votes. A popular election system would be more accurate than the current EC system. If a recount is demanded, it would be extremely easy to pull up records and tally them. This entire point, I believe, is flawed.

Point #2: Once again, flawed. The EC is a body that doesn't represent the people's opinion of candidates for office. In the Presidential election of 1824, Andrew Jackson won a clear majority of the popular votes, but not enough electoral votes. The EC could not get a candidate with 51% of a vote, so the election was thrown to the House of Representatives to decide. Through manipulation and corruption on the part of the Speaker of the House, Henry Clay of Kentucky, John Quincy Adams won in the House and thus won the Presidency. Jackson won the popular vote, but still lost because of the EC. The EC is flawed and does not represent the will of the people. This is a historical, not theoretical example.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Point #3: We are a Republic, but the EC still infringes on the democratic values that America holds dear. Our Republic is NOT recently formed, as we are nearly 300 years old and the oldest republic on earth. Rome collapsed because they were becoming increasingly more elitist and was invaded by several barbarian tribes. America can defend against these things, but the EC furthers elitism and takes away the power of the people. Our future can be shaped by many things, but the elimination of the EC would better our nation.

Now onto my arguments.

Contention 1: Will of the People
The will of the people is infringed upon by EC. In many cases, a candidate who won the popular vote lost in the EC, and this means a candidate who the people want elected doesn't get elected into office. In the Presidential election of 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote, but after the Supreme Court's intervention Florida's EC votes were given to Bush. This pushed Bush just over the necessary line, and won a candidate who didn't win the election the presidency. The EC takes away the people's say, and it must be eliminated for America to retain the democratic values it holds dear.

Contention 2: Living Constitution
Our Constitution has been interpreted in many ways. One of which is a living Constitution, which means that our Constitution constantly needs to be interpreted and changed in order to meet the needs and wants of the people is serves. The EC needs to be removed. It is an expansive, elitist, and ineffective organization, and the people need to have their voice shine through that of a corrupt institution. The Constitution needs to be shaped to fit the say of the people, and the living Constitution dictates that would should get rid of the EC to do this. This is the best option for America to defend the rights of its citizens.

Contention 3: Elitism
The EC has always been an elitist organization. If a candidate wins only a slight majority of votes in a state, he or she receives ALL of the EC votes. This is a highly polarized system that has to be eliminated. Those with the most money, the most supporters, and other resources to draw from win the election most of the time simply based on spending.
http://karlan.yale.edu...
That is a source explaining campaign spending elitism. The elimination of the EC would eliminate the elitism corrupting America's election process.

Conclusion: The EC takes away the say of the people, furthers elitism, and can easily be eliminated to better the lives of Americans. To please the people, to purify the system, and to better the nation, it is a must to eliminate the EC. Abolishing this ancient, decrepit system would be one of the best things to take place for America. For the sake of democracy and liberty, vote PRO!
Debate Round No. 1
Schwetzky

Con

As a little way to direct you, I will defend my points first, attack his, then state a few more.

My opponent's point #2 is strong but weak at the same time. The EC is an elected group of people, from the people. So technically, they are voting indirectly. Even if this wasn't the case, they are WISE. Like I said in my point #2 earlier, they stop president riots and persuasive speech. If they majority of the people's votes were to decide the president, their is a high chance of a horrible president.

As for my opponents argument against my third point, we are not a democracy nor do we want to be. We are a republic and proud of it. Also I did NOT say that our republic was RECENTLY
formed, I said it was DECENTLY formed. Also, you said that America can defend against "barbarian invasions." how do YOU explain 9/11?

By taking away our EC, it would be required to oversee the constitution. Our forefathers had NEVER intended for us to infringe on our beloved roots of America. Our constitution is America in whole and what we are. That wouldn't be true without the EC.

Now I shall attack his points....

For his contention 1 and conclusion, I will restate that America is NOT a democracy nor do we want to be. Besides, the will of the people is not always good. With what you are proposing, there is a high chance of a horrible president. So, why in the world would you want that? It doesn't even make logical sense.

A living constitution is an illogical, selfish way to infringe on our constitution. There is nothing else to say.

Now for more of my points.

This system requires the candidates to speak to a broader audience. This is because even if you won all the big states, (CA, TX, NY), you still wouldn't win. Now, would you rather have a president that speaks to three states or all 50,(51 if you count the District of Columbia)? the logical answer is 50, for if they could only speak to three states that proves a few things:

1: He is not self-confident. If the candidate was, then speaking to all would not be a problem.

2:The candidate is greedy. All the candidate wants is power and control and maybe the White House. That is a horrible quality in a president.

Conclusion: We, as Americans, SHOULD want the EC because is is the best possible way to elect a leader and it's whats best for America. I urge a ballot today for CON.
Brenavia

Pro

Brenavia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Schwetzky

Con

Since my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I would like to restate a crucial point.

This system requires the candidates to speak to a broader audience. This is because even if you won all the big states, (CA, TX, NY), you still wouldn't win. Now, would you rather have a president that speaks to three states or all 50,(51 if you count the District of Columbia)? the logical answer is 50, for if they could only speak to three states that proves a few things:

1: He is not self-confident. If the candidate was, then speaking to all would not be a problem.

2:The candidate is greedy. All the candidate wants is power and control and maybe the White House. That is a horrible quality in a president.

My opponent has obviously lost this debate for many reasons. I urge a positive ballot on today's debate.
Brenavia

Pro

Brenavia forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Schwetzky 5 years ago
Schwetzky
yes i know I am just so used to writing Vote pro. i meant, in my arguement, con
Posted by M.Torres 5 years ago
M.Torres
You do realize that you are Con, yes?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SchwetzkyBrenaviaTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: COn gets conduct for the forfeits, but pro had a better argument here and a few of his arguments weren't refuted properly/fully. But con did attempt to refute his arguments.