The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Electoral College should be banned

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,058 times Debate No: 75389
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This will be a harm/inherency/solvency style debate. I look forward to the debate and wish the best of luck to my opponent. The first round will be opening welcomes.


i accept this debate
Debate Round No. 1


The United States has been built as the ideal democratic society: social equality, freedom of speech, and an effective justice system. But what about freedom to vote for our presidential leader? The founding fathers prevented the common man from voting for president by creating the Electoral College and it is now obsolete.

Harm #1
The Electoral College is undemocratic.

Bradford, Plumer, The Indefensible Electoral College, Motherjones, October 8th, 2004, http://www/

"In that case, the election would be thrown to the House3 of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the President. (The Senate would choose the vice-President). Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the fifty five representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters. Given that many voters vote one party for the President and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people. And if an electoral tie seems unlikely, consider this: In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes in Ohio would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe."

Harm #2
The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states.

Fair Vote, "Problems with the Electoral College", 2000-2014,

"The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person. For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College."

Harm #3
The Electoral College encourages candidates to skip state.

US News, Christopher Pearson, "National Popular Vote Isn"t about Red and Blue States, Novemeber 5th, 2012,

"The 2012 election has been the worst one yet, with four out of five voters being ignored by candidates seeking the presidency. Twelve of the thirteen smallest states are on the sidelines. Here in Vermont, if you want to participate in the presidential elections, you drive to New Hampshire."

Harm #4
Popular vote could lose

Eric Black, 10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem, MinnPost, 10/16/12,

"It creates the possibility for the loser of the popular vote to win the electoral vote. This is more than a theoretical possibility. It has happened at least four times out of the 56 presidential elections, or more than 7 percent of the time, which is not such a small percentage, and it created a hideous mess every time. The most recent occurrence was 2000. "

Due to politician"s opposition and the Constitution, the Electoral College cannot be easily removed.


Inherency #1
Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote for president.

Richard A. Posner, In Defense of the Electoral College, Slate, 11/12/12,

The Constitution provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." And it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you"re actually voting for a slate of electors."

Inherency #2
Citizens are not aware of the election process.
Citation: NBC Los Angelos, "Study: Americans Don't Know Much About History", July 17th, 2009,

"Those who have held elected office lack civic knowledge; 43% do not know the Electoral College is a constitutionally mandated assembly that elects the president. One in five thinks it "trains those aspiring for higher office" or "was established to supervise the first televised presidential debates.""

The Electoral College can only be removed by using an amendment to the Constitution that must be approved by 38 states.

Create an amendment to the Constitution that would use the popular vote to elect the president and vice president.

Signing in an amendment to abolish the College would be a step toward a more democratic, free America.

Solvency :

Solvency #1
Swing states will be non-existent.

Solvency #2
More Americans will vote.

Zencollegelife, "The 7 Reasons Most Americans Don't Vote", 2015,

"Many Americans don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count. This is a common excuse that's rooted in the belief that the Electoral College chooses the President, not the voters."

Fairvote, The Center for Voting and Democracy, "Problems with the Electoral College",

"Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire."R39;

Solvency #3
Approval rates for president will be higher due to the fact that the main population will vote for the winner.

Solvency #4:
Independent, third party candidates have legitimate chances to win, rather than monopolizing the election to Republicans and Democrats

Banning the Electoral College in the United States would mean the extinction of indirect voting through representatives. An adoption of popular vote would usher in a purely democratic system, in which citizens choose who the citizens want, rather than the people being reduced to mere subjects of suggestions.


I don't understand this format so I will do it my way

C1. The electoral college prevents a tyranny of the majority.

The interests of states, especially small states, would be lost in a majoritarian national campaign. The electoral college forces candidates to be attentive to state interests.

When the founding fathers created the electoral college it was with the many purposes in mind, but the tyranny of the masses is the most appropriate in mind here. It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power.

C2. Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.

The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents.

A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area.

C3. Voter fraud

If we abolish the Electoral College then there will be riots over who won over voter fraud it will cost the economy about $50 million to investigate,Clean up from riots, Lawsuits, and new ballots for a possible revote.

Debate Round No. 2


It seems that you attacked none of my points.

Response 1.Your first point proved that the Electoral College is outdated.

"It is important to remember the timeframe that the US was created in, there was not a very high literacy rate, and it would become very easy without a check on majority rule for someone to manipulate the population when entering power" -Negative

Response: The U.S. now enjoys a 99% literacy rate. The freedom to be informed is higher than its ever been. With TV coverage, the radio, and the fast growing Internet, many more people know about political topics and presidential developments now than the days of Adams and the Corrupt Bargain ("The term Corrupt Bargain refers to three historic incidents in American history in which political agreement was determined by congressional or presidential actions that many viewed to be corrupt from different standpoints"). Using a system simply because it is traditional is utterly undemocratic and frankly lazy of our society.

Response 2. Your second point was addressed in my Harm #3

Local issues are not focused on by candidates. My evidence states that roughly 80% of the American population are ignored by the respective candidates.
Either way, your second point does not seem to have a clear direction to it, as I had a hard time understanding what you were exactly asserting.

Response 3. You have no evidence, and the "voter fraud" that you accuse my plan will be accompanied with has already happened four times in American history

You state that my plan will cost the economy $50 million. Nowhere in your argument did you explain where you got that number. You also brought up that voter fraud would lead to societal chaos (riots, mass lawsuits, money lost, etc), despite the fact that the voter fraud you mentioned has happened FOUR times in American history (under the Electoral College), the most recent being the 2000 election.

Your argument lacked evidence, proper grammar, and structure. It also lacked direction and length, and was frankly quite brief.


The electoral college has been her for 200 years why change it the voters will get confused because they are use to this system and if we change there will be a lot more voter fraud.
Debate Round No. 3


Con points up points I have already addressed. He did not pose any new points nor refuted any of my points. My arguments from the previous rounds stand.
I have nothing more to refute and the standing arguments persist. I will present new arguments when my opponent does their job of refuting/assertion.


Vote con on this debate because we need to keep ourselves safe from riots over who wins over a lot of lawsuits between the candidates and the voter fraud that will come with it thank you
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Wolf_Fang 1 year ago
Anybody reading the comment section,
My opponent copied and pasted his arguments from this. That explains why he completely fell apart in Round 3 after I refuted his points.

Vote Pro!
Posted by Wolf_Fang 1 year ago
Wow... thank you. This is quite... amazing. I've never seen somebody copy and paste without making any attempt to change it.
Posted by tsume 1 year ago
Brad1999 is a plagiarist... Sorry Wolf_Fang.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Pro offered sources