The Electoral College should be Abolished
For the purpose of this debate I will abbreviate Electoral college as EC
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. Let's say John Dough steps up to the voting podium and he is not entirely sure who he will vote for. He will choose the one who drilled their name into his head which is the one with the most money. Therefore, the EC is useless and unfair.
Contention 3: Elitism
The EC was, is, and always will be 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.
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!
So before making my case I will refute your arguments, not to be rude but you seem to not ave a firm grasp of knowlage of what the EC is.
"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."
The will of the people is not infringed. America unlike common belif, is not a democoracy, it is not a majority rule. If you need me to provide proof on that issue ask me and I will. Also you have showed no negative inpact of the minority winning the election. I will prove to you that it is the will if the people on my rebutal of your 3rd point because it talks about how th electors are nominated.
"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."
This contention has no reasoning behind it, it is just a statement. Just because something is a living costitution does it mean it NEEDS to be changed, no it doesn't. Just because smething is changeble doesn't mean you chould add an unnesesary law getting rid of somehting, the this point is invalid because it doesnt relate unless you specify why with good reason.
"The EC was, is, and always will be an elitist organization."
So you are claiming that only a political elite's make up the EC, that is dead wrong. Do you know how people get sent to the electoral college? Here's how:
The process for selecting electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party's central committee in each State.
Then the voters in each State choose the electors on the day of the general election. The electors' names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State.
So they are noinated by the political party, i.e. Republican nominie to the electoral college. Then THE PEOPLE vote forhim/her on election day. So the PEOPLE CHOOSE WHO GOES TO THE EC. So yout eletist argument is false.
"If a candidate wins only a slight majority of votes in a state, he or she receives ALL of the EC votes. "
Yes this is true, but that means a majority rule, but how? This means a majority rule per state. Here's an article quote explaining this:
When you head to the booth this Tuesday, you won't actually be pulling the lever for John Kerry or George Bush. Rather, you will be casting a ballot for a slate of electors pledged to a particular candidate, who are then supposed to vote for the person you want to be president. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of senators (two per state) plus the number of U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population as determined by the Census count every ten years. Presently, the Electoral College has 538 electors — 535 for the total number of senators and representatives plus three for Washington, D.C. Today, a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes to win. 
So you vote on peoplethat say "I will vote for bush" if you choose a buch vote. or a "I will vote for kerry" elector if you vote for im. It is simple, the erson you vote for leads to a vote count for each elector. If the person pledged to kerry wins the vote in his district he then moves on to vote for kerry in his electoral vote. So the system is fair in that sense. So if more EC votes go to kerry, then he won a majority in that state most likely, so the majority ussally win, but not always because a small district in texas would still have a elector so if all the small districts went fr bush then the vote would go for kerry, but this is fair as well. Why you might ask. Because the minority ofworkig citizens in the farming districts should have the chance have their voice heard. Does this make sense? If not I will explain next round, or if asked to do it in the comments then I shall.
"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,"
One, he system is not decrepit, instead of aboishing it why not make a new version, there have been 3 already, but hte system ist broke so why fix it. Also your way would not purify the system, I will talk about this in my actual argument, not my rebutal. How would it better our nation, go into detail. Also how would it be the best thing in america? Once again, explain.
Contention 1, the EC is an easier vote count, therefore making it easer to make a distinct winner, purifying the system.
Sorry for the run on sentence. I will copy and paste from my 3rd source bcause it has a goo dexplanation:
Indeed, the closeness of the 2000 election in so many places—multiple states as well as the nation as a whole—suggests that we should thank our lucky stars the Framers gave us the system we have.
It is precisely because of the Electoral College that the recounting of votes focused on one state instead of many. If the popular vote decided the winner, we would still be bogged down in questionable recounts in dozens, if not hundreds, of counties across the country. The potential for mistakes and abuse would have been enormously compounded, and the cloud over the eventual winner would have been all the more dark and ominous. 
So this talks about how the EC makes a more clear winner.
Contention 2: it is fair.
Some say that it is inherently unfair for a candidate to win in the Electoral College and become president if another candidate actually has more popular votes. It should be noted at the outset that it is extremely unlikely this could ever happen when the popular vote margin is wide. A narrow margin in the popular vote—narrow enough to be wiped out with a few vote-rigging recounts—cries out for a decisive conclusion, and that's what the Electoral College offers. 
So according to this, if a person wins by a narrow margin than it is fair. Also it states that it is rare that if the margin was wide then the person in the EC would win, if the margin was 4% or more then this is amlost impossible. So the winner only wins if the margin is large. Also the 2000 election's numbers are still unknown. the numbers people think where 49-51. But since the re counts never faced a certian conclusion the supreme court had to decide. So it is possible that bush tied the popular vote.
contention 3: It gives the smaller states a say, in your system the smaller states dont have any power in the outcome of the election, and f they do it would be rare.
If we had a popular vote system then the large states would be the only important ones. The electoral college forces a canidate to put reasources into the small states:
Moreover, the fact that a candidate must win a majority in the Electoral College means that he cannot focus all his resources and attention on campaigning in only a few large states. He must fashion a truly national appeal, as opposed to a divisive regional one. That helps assure that the winner will enjoy an added measure of support and legitimacy that derives from a relatively broad base. 
So the EC lets the smaller states have a say.
contention 4: Currently, the EC wont be killed through the constitution
I have no more room so I will put a lengthy respons later.
One, the reason of me doing this debate is to see the other side of this, so there is no reason to put up another argument.
Two, Thank you for the feedback and please state more arguments.
Please do not think of me of a noob or anything else because I wont argue back. I just want to see the other side and how to refute my argument.
Those are the main arguments for it. But I will add on to them.
Gives power to the small states:
It gives the small states more EC votes per person, which may sound unfair, but it is not. Every state as at least 3 electoral votes. In a popular vote system those small states would never sway an election, giving these small farming communities more power lets their vote count. So it helps the smaller states.
It is not an elitist
Well I can't add much more because you had no counter argument, but the electors are voted on by the state, the way their elected makes it the peoples will.
Just cause we can change it doesn't mean we should change that part. Also ow I cann add on to my 4th point
The EC cant be changed in our constitution at this time:
Thankfully, the question of abolishing the Electoral College is moot because the hurdles a constitutional amendment would have to jump to accomplish that end are simply too high. Too many small states would block it, as they have successfully done on numerous previous occasions. They understand that doing away with the Electoral College would shift the focus of presidential elections to a handful of large, populous states. 
So the small states would block it because they do not want the bigger states to have all of the power.
Since my opponent just wants to see my side of the story he conceded in a way, so I win by default. Vote CON!
Schwetzky forfeited this round.
|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:||0||1|