The Instigator
gregm55
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
wolfman4711
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points

The Electoral College

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
gregm55
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,873 times Debate No: 29306
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

gregm55

Con

The Electoral College was a great idea in the early stages of America. There was little communication, many people weren't educated enough to make such an important decision, and the states needed a system to help unify them. Now, we are able to learn each candidates' positions by simply going on the computer or watching the news, we have a higher percentage of literate and educated people then any other time, and we are united as one nation. We also have too many people for the amount of representatives. At its beginning every elector represented approximately 7,000 citizens. now every elector represents 700,000 people. It is not possible, under these circumstances, for every citizens view to be represented.
For all of these reasons the EC should be abolished and replaced by popular vote.
wolfman4711

Pro

I will be supporting the electoral college over popular vote because the winner is chosen by the majority of citizens of that state. If the majority of states as a whole don't want a candidate to be president then he should not be president. The electoral college also gets much faster then the popular vote. You can't find out who won the election until every vote is counted. Which can take up to two months! The electoral college Is part of America and shouldn't be overturned
Debate Round No. 1
gregm55

Con

Thank you for accepting my debate. I hope we have an educated discussion on this topic. This is the topic I am using for my senior project in high school so I have done a lot of research.

You said it is part of America and it should be kept. Well I would disagree. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. This is why they allowed for amendments. They knew that over time the situations would change and changes would need to be made to the government.

You also said that if the majority of the states don't support the candidate then he should not be president. I disagree simply because I would rather reach the majority of the people rather than the majority of the states. Though many people forget, we live in a Republic. This was created because the Framers knew that America would be too large to have every citizen vote on every decision that needed to be made, but they wanted the people's opinions voiced so they had representatives for them. This is the most important decision we make in America however. So I believe that every citizen should have a say. And along with that, under the current conditions if the EC, if a certain state's voting breaks down to 40% and 60% on the opposing sides, the 40% wouldn't count towards the election because the winner of the majority would win all the electoral votes for that state. That is not a republic. That means that 40% of the state isn't represented. I see a problem with this.

Now, finally to reply to your comment about the length of time it takes to tally the popular vote, I would like to simply say that we would be able to do it quicker. At this time the popular vote doesn't matter. So it is not a necessity to have the numbers in quickly. And also, as it is now, the projections would call the winner early based on their research and study.
wolfman4711

Pro

Polling is much easier with the states instead of the whole country. Thousands of polling jobs could potentially be cut from work. The popular vote is almost always the same outcome as the electoral college. about 200 years ago we made a compromise between the Virginia plan and NJ plan. So that smaller states have a good amount of power to overturn the bigger states when they mess up. And that's how it should be.

Plus My opponents numbers from the first round are way off 700000 per elector is completely wrong. Wyoming has a population of 698000 people and it has three electors. He probably made up those numbers in his head.
Debate Round No. 2
gregm55

Con

I said that those numbers were approximations simply to get my point across. Either way we have lost a huge amount of representation. And the reason Wyoming has that many is because 3 is the minimum number of electoral vote that any state can have. As for polling, there would still be polling. People would still poll early in order to predict the outcome. And last, I'm not sure if u have looked at the outcomes of the elections before because there have been multiple time throughout history when the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college. The most recent of these being in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush won the electoral votes. I was a Bush fan at the time and was therefore happy at the outcome, but if the American people want Al Gore to be their president then that's who it should be.
wolfman4711

Pro

Really each elector can represent up to about 400000 at most. You give a basic argument like by the people, for the people,as the people. But legislation is kinda of like this, you pass through both houses with flying colors but the president vetoes it. We also need some kind veto in the election of the president . If most states as a whole don't like it then he should not be president. That's why the senators have equal representation. The people came up with a compromise and now we have an electoral college. The big states get higher representation but enough little states can get the big ones.
Debate Round No. 3
gregm55

Con

Okay, I did the math for those stats to be exact. there are over 315 million citizens in the US, with 538 electoral votes. This means that on average each elector represents over 586,000 people. That is not an adequate representation of every Americans views.
And you said "the people came up with a compromise and now we have an electoral college." Well as I said before, this was formed by the Framers of the Constitution, not by the people. They did, however know what they were doing. They allowed amendments to be possible in order to make small changes to the Constitution that they knew would be necessary for the progression of such a large nation.
And vetoes have been put in place in the government so that not one branch has too much power. If we were to switch to popular vote, the government would have no power over the issue, and we would not need a veto. The people would decide who they want to be president and that would be the end of the argument.
I do not understand how anyone could be okay with the large percentages of states not being represented as happens often in this form of election.
You also said nothing to disagree with my point that there have been multiple times in which the winner of the popular vote has not won the election. It seems to me like you have not done your research on key facts about this subject.
wolfman4711

Pro

Only three times in history the electoral vote over ruled the popular vote 1876, 1888 and 2000. Each state shall not be overruled by the big states. Are you saying changing the laws of the presidential election a small change? If they wanted us to change our laws so frequently why would we need two- third majority in both houses? The articles are only to be changed when they violate our freedoms. You have just given basic answers and nothing more to me your case is not good enough.
Debate Round No. 4
gregm55

Con

Changing the presidential election would be a small change in the fact that it would not affect the way our government functions as a whole. It would still run as a representative democracy. The only change is that everyone's opinion would be shown in the election. And I do feel that my freedom is being violated if my views aren't being portrayed in such an important decision to our country.

Thank you for accepting my debate and good luck!
wolfman4711

Pro

I think that the electoral college is a great compromise between big states and little states and should be maintained. I've explained how its faster easier to poll and a part of American history. People would still target the swing states if there was a popular vote because there most open to change. Anyway electoral college is the way to go. If you think there's not enough representation than It would be better just to add some more electors. Please vote for me if you agree.

I would like to say thanks again, it was a great debate and may the best man win.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gregm55 3 years ago
gregm55
Deadlykris is right, there are two states that have implemented this idea, Maine and Hawaii. This is a state decision and every state should accept it. It would solve a lot of the current problems with the election system.

OhioGary who a person votes for is not changed based on the way his state votes as a whole. If I vote republican and my state votes democrat, it does not mean that now I am pulling for the democratic candidate. I still, however, would consider him my president. I just dont think that he would be the best one for the job.
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
@gregm55 - The Constitution only goes through the process of granting a number of Electors to a state. The process of apportioning those electors is a state issue. Some states do have proportional representation. The argument for proportional representation is that the EC would more closely resemble popular vote in that state. Some states have a winner-take-all apportionment of electors. The argument for winner-take-all is that the President will be the President of all Americans, and not just the majority who voted for the candidate.

Which one is correct? Our Founding Fathers believe that the apportionment of Electors was a state issue and I agree with them.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
If the Electoral College were taken away, then only three states would even matter: New York, California, and Texas. The College balances the power so that all states have a say.

I've heard rumors of a proposal that would require an allowance for electors in a state to have a split vote, rather than allowing the state to decide that all electoral votes must go to one candidate. I agree with this proposal (though some are calling it a GOP election-rigging scheme) because it better represents the wants and needs of the nation as a whole.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Aned
It is about having a fair process, in which every candidate can promote his agenda. Even better of they all get the same amount of funds for campaigning.

Because the way it is right now, to get elected, a candidate must be well-liked in the Northeast since the primary rely on those states. That is one of the reasons that Rick Perry could not advance. It would have been a lot different if the primaries had started in Texas or in any other southwestern states.
Posted by Aned 3 years ago
Aned
As long as the Electoral College are in place, only people who live in swing states are encourage to vote. Why should I go vote here in California if the democrat candidate will win anyway?

But the other problem is that only two out of the six candidates participates in national debates in CNN, FOX, etc.
Posted by gregm55 3 years ago
gregm55
Ohiogary, even if there were more electoral votes, it wouldn't change the fact that he candidate that wins the majority of the votes in a certain state would win 100% of the electoral votes. It would not solve the problem totally, although it would be better.
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
I understand the frustration that Con feels with the Electoral College. I think the issue is that we don't have an adequte number of members in the House of Representatives. Additional House members would increase the size of the Electoral College and cause fewer, if any, disparities between the EC & popular vote.
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
Not a bad idea but would be way to slow to count the votes.
Posted by autodidact 3 years ago
autodidact
What voting system is con for, first past the post? Has con consider the alternative vote?
Posted by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
I was but.... Eh got to many debates at once
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
gregm55wolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made up arguments without providing support, so I am giving arguments & sources to Pro. I also think that Con should have revised this resolution to say something along the lines of ending the Electoral College -and taking a Pro position- rather than trying to put the Contender into a position of supporting it. I'm giving conduct to Pro for that reason. S&G was a tie.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
gregm55wolfman4711Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were not factual.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
gregm55wolfman4711Tied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro gave half-baked responses to cons arguments and if he expanded on how it is beneficial that smaller states have more voting power, he easily would have won my vote. Arguments to the con though and conduct too since pro accused con of making up numbers when he was pretty accurate the whole time
Vote Placed by MochaShakaKhan 3 years ago
MochaShakaKhan
gregm55wolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources would have helped either side a great deal. I'm giving con the win because his argument that the EC can't properly account for everyone's views was never really contended by Pro. Also, Pro's arguments generally didn't flow as well narratively, seeming to go off topic sometimes. He also tried to say Con was wrong on his number count based on a 2000 person difference, which isn't significant when we're talking about 700,000 people.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 3 years ago
tmar19652
gregm55wolfman4711Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made the false argument that the popular vote can take up to 2 months to count, and they also argued for unequal representation per person with the big states vs little states compromise.