The Instigator
HempforVictory
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
The_Mad_Hatter
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,371 times Debate No: 6362
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

HempforVictory

Pro

First of all, I want to commend Debate.org for introducing me to the Natural Law Party by offering it as an option for party affiliation. Otherwise, I would never have known that there is a political party that is comprised of intelligent people with a platform that makes absolute perfect sense.

It is most unfortunate that they have closed their national headquarters due to their failure in the '92, '96, and 2000 elections. However, their website is still active and their platform can be found here: http://www.natural-law.org...

After reading through them, I am willing to debate "pro" for any of their main Issues, which are listed in the given link.
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

I want to commend and thank my opponent for such a interesting debate.

My opponent is willing to go "pro" for any of the main issues listed on their website.

I have chosen the Main Issue of Strengthening Democracy for this debate.

More Specifically: Election Reform and the Natural Law Party proposal of Abolishing the Electoral College.

The party proposes that people should be elected through direct popular vote.

So I propose to my opponent a debate on the Abolishment of the Electoral College which is directly under their guidelines for a solution to Election Reform. If my opponent has any problem with this, my opponent can address this in the comment sections so Round 2 may begin the debate.

Do Note: I propose that the debate be entirely on this topic as to not have a scattered debate due to the 8,000 character limit on this website.

I would just like to once again thank my opponent for such a debate idea and for willing to pose his argument first.
Debate Round No. 1
HempforVictory

Pro

Thank you for the kind words, I'm glad to see that this proposition has been accepted. While your proposal is a bit more narrowly focused than I anticipated, I will accept the challenge.

To clarify, the debate will be regarding the abolishment of the electoral college with instead the popular vote deciding the president, and I am pro.

With the electoral college, there is very little incentive for voters in states that have a strong majority for one party to vote, since most states award all of the electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. In a state like California, for example, there are so many democrats that a Republican voter would feel as though there were no reason to vote, because it doesn't matter. And the truth is that it wouldn't, California's 55 electoral votes will always go to the democratic candidate, and the voice of all others will be silenced.

Not only is this unfair to the Republican candidate (in California), it is especially unfair to the 3rd party candidate who has little hope of acquiring any electoral votes. Even if the 3rd party managed to win a state, and neither of the major parties were able to get the required number of votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. In most cases, the result of a 3rd party running is that the party least like them is helped out, like Perot stealing votes from Dole. With a popular vote, a 3rd party would have to receive a substantial number of votes to alter the outcome of the election, which might be possible after several elections to build up support.

You might argue that with a popular vote a candidate could win by pandering only to cities and densely populated states. However, with the current system, a candidate can win with only 11 states...is that more fair? Because we have a two party system (which is encouraged by the electoral college), swing states become the only states that really matters to the politicians. All of the advertising money and speeches are given in states like Florida and Ohio where they have voted for both parties in recent history.

The history of the electoral college should be taken into account when we consider its worth today. According to a professor of law at Yale University, "At the founding of the country, the deepest schisms ran not between large and small states but between North and South." The reason for the electoral college was so that states with a large slave population would receive representation for those slaves, even though they were not allowed to vote. In those days, a slave counted as 3/5 of a person for population count in determining the number of representatives and hence, the number of electors. Women's suffrage was also discouraged (or at least, not encouraged), because allowing more women (or slaves or any other group) would not give a state more clout in deciding the election because their number of electors is fixed. With a popular vote, a higher turnout of voters means that a state is more likely to have an impact on the national election.

Finally, no other state gubernatorial election relies on an electorate, nor does any other country for that matter. So why does it make sense for electing the president of the United States?

http://www.law.yale.edu...
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for once again creating this debate and glad we can come to such a consensus on the choosing of a topic.

To clarify, the debate will be regarding the abolishment of the electoral college with instead the popular vote deciding the president, and I am con.

Due to the way my opponent posed his points, I will make mine in a easier # format as my opponent addressed several different issues in one paragraph.

1.) My opponent has stated that is very little incentive for voters in states that have a strong majority for one party to vote, since most state awards all of the electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. My opponent uses the state of California and it's 55 electoral votes as a example. He says and I quote "California's 55 electoral votes will always go to the democratic candidate, and the voice of all others will be silenced."

This is simply untrue dear reader. If everybody on the Democratic side decided to stay home due to over-confidence that Republicans would do such a thing then the Republicans who came out and voted would win.

Furthermore, how would popular vote change this? People living in such states would not change their minds on who they are voting for, and candidates would only to appeal to the most populous areas of the countries such as California, New York, or Texas. Meanwhile, states like Wyoming, Rhode Island, Maine, and Alaska get ignored due to their small numbers. In fact, candidates would visit such small populated states less because their vote actually matters less now in the entire scheme of things. Electoral College Votes are only determined by the population of each state.

http://www.cnn.com...

Using my opponent's California Example:

11,996,101 people in California voted for just the Democratic and Republican candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) alone. This does not include third party candidates.

Meanwhile, in the state of Wyoming; 241,135 people voted for just the Democratic and Republican candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) alone. This does not include third party candidates.

That is a 11,754,966 difference. No viable candidate would spend more then a day or two in Wyoming with such differences.

In California's history, they have voted for a Republican 23 times and a Democrat 16 times. In fact, in the last ten elections; California has voted for a Republican 5 times and a Democrat 5 times. In fact, from 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except the landslide loss of Barry Goldwater in 1964.
http://www.270towin.com...

This rids the debate of my opponent myth that California will always go to the democratic candidate.

2.) Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that all parties tend to focus campaigning to the undecided portion of the country every election cycle. This occurs in every democracy out there and is not a direct consequence of the electoral college system. Besides, the current system encourages campaigning and appealing to a broad geographical range of areas that contain different voters which will help lead the government to a better idea of what society needs and what it upholds rather then a few populated areas of the country.

Case and Point: What people in California want and consider for values is most likely different then what people want and consider for values in Wyoming or Arkansas. However, with the popular vote; candidates will appeal to only states like New York, Texas, and California while ignoring the needs of the smaller states. Which is the exact reason this was put in place in the first place.

Furthermore, the shift of the south from Democratic to Republican and the shift of California from Republican to Democrat in the past thirty years alone shows the system is not unchanging and that no state can be taken for granted. Barack Obama further proved in this in the election that such is true when he won what is considered "red" states and showed no state can be taken for granted. His wins in the "red" states helped swing the election into his favor.

3.) My opponent argues that this system is unfair to 3rd party candidates and that the Electoral College is a two-party system. This is true, however it is good for the country. A great number of parties would, like in Italy, or the first round of voting in France lead to unstable parties and a weak government overall that is not united. This cannot happen in America with the role it plays in the rest of the world. For America to show it is not united and unstable would be a horrible thing.

Furthermore, 3rd party candidates would still go nowhere under popular vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As this link demonstrates, the second closest 3rd party candidate would be Ralph Nader in the 2008 election with 736,804 votes OVERALL or only 0.56% of the vote. The numbers don't get better after that dear reader. So I ask my opponent, how will having the popular vote even help 3rd party candidates?

My opponent claims that such a 3rd party altering the outcome of the election could be possible after several elections to build up support. The only reason Ross Perot even got as close as he did was because he was rich and spent his way to the top (and failed). The most famous 3rd party candidate in the last few elections is Ralph Nader who has been running for President since 1992 and has actually received less votes since 2000. What my opponent is proposing is merely a myth short of one of the main two parties currently collapsing in which a new 2nd party would take it's place. Which would still fit my definition of the electoral college working.

4.) A candidate could possibly win with only 11 states but it is unlikely. However, is it more fair to take away the electoral college and go to the popular vote? Those 11 states my opponent talks about would be the 11 states that candidates focus on during the election and could quite possibly win the entire election with those 11 states victory in the popular vote. Never mind the voters in other states who would vote for the candidate.

5.) The history of the electoral college should not be taken into account unless it affects the electoral college today. As slavery and the 3/5 of a person for population count no longer exists in the electoral college then it has no affect on the electoral vote and therefore makes my opponent's last point entirely null and void.

6.) My opponent proposes following the rest of the world, why? Just because it is the popular choice in the rest of the world, doesn't make it the correct choice.

7.) Nothing positive will come out of the abolishment of the electoral college. In fact, things may just get worse during the election season. Many people may not like the electoral college, but it is the best thing we've got.

8.) My opponent has failed to prove how things when it comes to voting will so much better when the electoral college is abolished, nothing will change at the very least or things will in fact get worse as I already stated.

With that dear reader, I like to thank you for reading my argument once again and my opponent for creating such a debate.

I strongly urge you to vote correctly and vote CON when the time comes.
Debate Round No. 2
HempforVictory

Pro

Thank you for numbering the points, I will try to do that for my next debate.

1. "This is simply untrue dear reader. If everybody on the Democratic side decided to stay home due to over-confidence that Republicans would do such a thing then the Republicans who came out and voted would win."

Clearly, the word "always" was simply meant as a hyperbole, I did not mean it to be taken literally. It is true that for what I said to be a true, there needs to be a consistent voting base that holds a clear majority for one candidate. In those cases, there is no real motivation to go out and vote...especially for young adults and people who have never voted before.

With a popular election, every single vote matters and is weighted equally. The 4.9 million republican voters in California would have their votes counted, so I don't think that the people of the sparsely populated Wyoming will be at much of a disadvantage, especially if it remains a two party system. With the popular vote, republicans in California might become inspired and raise it to 6 million - that wouldn't matter with the electoral college.

http://vote.sos.ca.gov...

Even if California has not been Democratic for more than the past 5 elections, a better indication of how a state is going to vote than it's history is the current polls. When polls show that there is a strong majority for one candidate, the incentive to vote becomes minimized with the electoral college. With a popular vote, there is always an incentive to vote because every vote is counted.

2) "Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that all parties tend to focus campaigning to the undecided portion of the country every election cycle. "
True, but the electoral system makes it much easier for candidates to pander to undecided states, as opposed to undecided people throughout the nation. I don't know that I would consider the swing states to contain "a broad geographical range of areas", especially since politicians still tend to visit the cities in the swing states anyway simply because they can reach more people in the swing state by going to it's main city. I think it would be better if they were to pay attention to cities across the country, rather than just those in the swing states. Consider the swing state of Ohio or Florida, both of which have both cities and country land (And I would argue that values are less dependent on what state you live in and more on the urban or rural character of your hometown). Candidates would just pander to the people living in Miami or Cleveland (cities) because they're the most populated parts of the state, that is essentially what you are arguing.

However, I'm not sure that argument holds water anyway, but if it did, it would still hold with the electoral college. The reason why this is no longer true (even if it was in the past), is because of technological advancements and the ability to broadcast over tv and internet. When they advertise to Ohio, I would imagine that they advertise to the whole state and not just the cities. This would imply that with a popular vote, they would advertise to the whole country, not just the cities or populated states as you suggest.

"Which is the exact reason this was put in place in the first place."

Really? Are you more of an expert on this matter than Prof. Amar of Yale University? Readers should trust my initial assertion regarding the history of the electoral college as it is the only one that is backed up with a credible source. I remember being told in elementary school that the electoral college existed to make it more fair for farming states too; I'm not surprised they didn't tell us that it was put in place so that the south could have representation for their slaves and still deny them voting rights.

3) My opponent has agreed that the electoral college favors a two party system, and feels this to be beneficial. I disagree, as I feel that facilitating the entrance of a 3rd party would force politicians to be more honest because it would be easier for them to be replaced. While this may create political instability, this would only be the case if there was a strong 3rd party candidate. Political instability is synonymous with a dynamic political system that changes more rapidly to fit the will of the populous.

4) "Those 11 states my opponent talks about would be the 11 states that candidates focus on during the election and could quite possibly win the entire election with those 11 states victory in the popular vote."

It would be highly unlikely though, because they would have to win nearly 100% of the votes in those 11 states if they had no others. The fact is that large states like California may have clear majorities for one party, but there are still a substantial number of voters who go the other way. The popular vote would do a better job of forcing candidates to consider the whole country, because votes gained in any state are all equal.

5) Reports of voter disenfranchisement still exists today. I recall from the last election that voters in Alabama were complaining that they could not register to vote because they didn't have drivers licenses. In some areas, voting booths are limited and the lines are horrendous, greatly discouraging people from voting. If a state felt that having more voters would mean more consideration from the executive branch, they would take measures to ensure that everyone who wants to can vote. Right now, a state does not benefit in any way from having a higher voting turnout.

6) Sometimes when you're the only person doing something, it's because it's a bad idea. But you're correct that this is not a valid argument for the abolishment of the electoral college.

7, 8) It is you who have not shown how the electoral college benefits the country. I have shown the fallacy in your argument that candidates would only pander to populated states. You maintain that a 2 party system (supported by the electoral college) is more stable and therefore beneficial, while I think that stability of the status quo breeds corruption and dishonesty in government.

I have shown that a popular vote would provide greater incentive for everyone to vote, and would encourage states to facilitate their registration and voting processes. Furthermore, candidates would not ignore voters in states that they feel they have already won or have no chance in, because all votes count.

I don't see any merit in telling the reader how to vote, I think it is implied that I want you to vote for me (pro).
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

1.) Clearly, the word "always" is taken literally as it would be. If what my opponent says is true, then why young adults and people who have never voted before vote now more then ever? Because who the candidates are influence people more then the system. It does not matter if it's popular vote or electoral vote; unpopular uninspiring candidates don't bring out the 18-25 demographic.

Every single vote is weighted equally already, the electoral college is in place to protect all 50 states. The popular vote fails to do this. My opponent fails to realize that Wyoming be will at a disadvantage, to say otherwise would be ignorant of the numbers that I've posted. Again, the inspiring candidate argument takes hold here. Obama won in what is considered "red" states because he was inspiring enough to get both Democrats and Republicans to vote for him.

The incentive to vote is always there, whether the people choose to use that right or not is up to them.

2.) My opponent concedes to the point I've made. The electoral system makes it much easier for candidates to pander to the undecided states because there are enough people in those states for it to be undecided. Swing States are all over the U.S which contain a broad geographical range of areas. My opponent proves my point when he talks about the cities, nothing positive will change with the popular vote. In fact, the suburbs will be ignored for the cities instead.

My opponent fails to consider that candidates visit cities in all states just about to campaign there. Candidates would pander to the people living in Miami, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Boston (where I'm from), and New York because more people are there. Why visit a small town when you can visit the nearest cities that has a hundred times the population? That is the sort of things that happen under a popular vote system.

http://www.history.com...

As the history channel link shows:

"It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing "senatorial" electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."

However, it's already been stated that the history of the electoral college does not matter unless it affects the electoral college today which it doesn't.

My opponent's own link even states:

"Of course, even an election system with tainted origins might be worth preserving for different reasons today."

In fact, my opponent seems to take many of his arguments from that link; some of which he has already conceded to me.

3.) The entrance of a 3rd party or even a 4th party would not be beneficial. How it would force them to be more honest? People are going to vote for whom they agree with most when it comes to their views. 3rd party candidates most of the time either have unpopular views, their whole time of campaigning is to one issue such as Illegal Immigration, Medical Marijuana, and or don't have people who agree with their views the most. This is not the fault of the electoral college. With the Internet today, people can explore any party platforms they want and it's quite obvious that the Democrat and Republican parties are preferred by more then 98.6% of the majority. My opponent does not seem to care that this would create unneeded political instability, and the will of the populous at the moment is the Democrat and Republican parties are good enough.

4.) My opponent seems to think his proposal is viable but mine isn't. California does not have clear majorities for one party as California has not always voted one way. If a candidate campaigns enough, the candidate could get nearly 100% of the votes. The popular vote would not do a better job of forcing candidates to consider the whole country, because nothing will change at the least or the smaller cities will become ignored for the larger ones.

5.) The Voter Disenfranchisement that my opponent talks about is unrelated to the electoral college and would occur if not more so in a popular vote system. The flaws of the government when it comes to voting booths is not the fault of the electoral college.

6.) My opponent concedes this point to me.

7, 8) My opponent you have failed to show how popular vote will bring out a great amount of voter turnout that you seem to propose will happen if implemented. I have shown how the electoral college benefits the country. If we take the "fallacy" in your argument then it merely applies to yours. The candidates would only pander to populated states. Stability of the status quo does not breed corruption and dishonesty, corrupt and dishonest candidates do. What you say is the electoral college's fault is merely the fault of the candidates themselves.

Again, you have failed to show that popular vote would provide a greater incentive for everyone to vote. How would states be encouraged to facilitate their registration and voting processes; especially if according to you that they do nothing now and don't care whether people vote? Furthermore, candidates would ignore voters in states that are small under popular vote.

9.) My opponent has failed to address the following: The Electoral College numbers are only assigned by the population of that state. Which is why California, Texas, and New York are higher then Alaska, Wyoming, and Maine.

Since this is true, popular vote would have no positive difference on elections.

Furthermore, my opponent has offered no evidence of any sort beside his theories of why popular vote would beneficial to society.

10.) Many of the problems my opponent blames on the electoral college is invalid because it is not the electoral college's fault. It could be the state's fault, the parties fault, the candidates fault,etc. If the 3rd parties want to be big in America, they need to stop being static so their whole campaign isn't about one issue, need to stop having highly unfavorable views,etc. It is not the American people's fault that they choose not to vote with people they disagree with. It is their given right when they go to vote. 3rd party candidates only received 1.4% of the vote COMBINED in the last election. So it seems 98.6% of the nation has no problem with the candidates of the Democrat and Republican party.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Again, to blame all these things on the electoral college when it is not their fault is invalid and all points should be considered as such.

11.) This debate does not have to prove whether the electoral college is perfect. My opponent seems to think so, but it isn't true. This debate is over the Abolishment of the Electoral College; not whether it's perfect. I merely have to prove that getting rid of it would be worse then keeping it. Which I have proven here today.

My opponent once again has offered no evidence that a popular vote would bring about such change that he keeps talking about, blames the electoral college for things that isn't the electoral college's fault, keeps talking about the myth of the 3rd party being viable while the two main parties are which I have is proven isn't true, and has conceded several points to me.

The popular vote system is imperfect and has many more flaws as I've talked about then the electoral college. Implementing it would be getting rid of the suburbs and small town America from the election. Small states like Wyoming, Maine, and Rhode Island with populations nowhere near New York, California, and Texas would no longer matter to candidates when they can simply campaign in some of the largest cities in the US.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate once again and you for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
HempforVictory

Pro

1) "It does not matter if it's popular vote or electoral vote; unpopular uninspiring candidates don't bring out the 18-25 demographic."

Actually to the contrary, it was the severe unpopularity of George Bush that is responsible for increasing the response of the 18-25 demographic. Especially in the 2004 election, young adults were voting against Bush, not for Kerry. It is the apparent disregard the executive branch has had for its citizens that that people are starting to become less apathetic and are demanding change. As evidenced by both the McCain and Obama campaigns, change is what the people are demanding. And you can't say that the system doesn't influence people, because America has never had a direct vote for president.

Every single vote is not weighted equally for several reasons. First of all, a vote in a less populated state is worth a greater fraction of an electoral vote than a vote in a more populated state. Secondly, because votes from a states minority party are not counted, those votes are arguably worth less as well.

My opponent continues to assert that the people of Wyoming would be a disadvantage, but this is not so. This is because sparsely and densely populated states are much more similar than my opponent cares to admit - both have democrats and republicans. There are rural areas in every state, even the most densely populated state of NJ has farms and farmers; and I'm sure Wyoming has a few cities scattered about too. As I stated in a previous post, there are 4.9 million republicans in California that would better represent the will of people like the people in Wyoming better than they do by themselves (because of their few numbers).

2) "Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that all parties tend to focus campaigning to the undecided portion of the country every election cycle. "
This statement is correct, but the conclusions that you have drawn from it are not, so I have conceded nothing to you. The fact that candidates can pander only to swing states is not beneficial because its easier for the candidates, its unfair because they can than ignore states that have clear majorities.

"My opponent proves my point when he talks about the cities"
No, my point is that candidates would pander only to the cities within the swing states if your argument were correct.

"My opponent fails to consider that candidates visit cities in all states just about to campaign there. "
Really? In the map on the left - http://en.wikipedia.org... - the states that received a visit from a presidential or vice presidential candidate from either the Obama or McCain campaign is presented. Notice that there are many states that did not receive a single visit, disproving your assertion and confirming that candidates only care about swing states. CA received 2 visits, and NY 1, while FL, OH, and PA (all major swing states) have an uncountable number of visits.

I'm not very surprised that the History Channel wouldn't present a seemingly controversial reason for the formation of the electoral college. However, like you say the history is not relevant if it has no modern implications, but I have already shown that voter disenfranchisement still occurs so the history is still quite relevant.

3) "How it would force them to be more honest?" Because its like business - more competition results in a better product - more competition among politicians will result in a better leader being elected. The fringe parties that you speak of know that they have no chance in winning, they exist solely to advertise their message so that maybe it will creep into a mainstream party. If there was a popular vote, 3rd parties might make more serious attempts to compete with the status quo. And as I stated before, the only way that a popular vote would create instability is if there were a 3rd party that gained enough support to destabilize one of the major parties. If that happens, than I say it should have happened a long time ago because that is the will of the people.

4) California does have a clear majority because more than 60% voted for Obama in the last election, which was predicted well before the election and displayed in polling data.

5) It is not unrelated because similar disenfranchisment of slaves was the primary motivation for instating the electoral college. If a popular vote were implemented instead, states would have an incentive to increase their number of active voters. The number of active voters in a state would than become an important factor to the incumbent president when making decisions that may affect said state.

6) I did not concede a point to you, because my point that the presidential election is alone in its use of the electoral college and that therefore the scrutiny should lie on keeping the system, rather than abolishing it, still stands.

7, 8) I think the voters of this debate will disagree, and confirm my resolution that a popular vote would in fact increase voter turnout. The main reason being that there is currently little incentive for supporters of the state's minority party to vote, because they will feel as though their vote is not being counted towards the general election. Furthermore, states do not have an incentive to increase voter turnout with the current system, but would with a popular vote.

9) The fact that California, Texas, and New York were all virtually ignored during the last election (as evidenced by the link previously presented in this post) suggests that state population is not nearly as important as the occurrence of states that have no clear majority. With a popular vote, there would certainly be more attention given to these states, but is it so farfetched that the states with more people receive more attention? It certainly makes more sense than the states with an arbitrary equilibrium receiving all the attention.

There has never been a popular vote for president in the U.S., so the only arguments for its existence would have to be theories.

10) I have shown repeatedly how and why the electoral college is at least partly responsible for such problems as low voter turnout and voter disenfranchisement. I have also explained why 3rd parties may be at a disadvantage under the current system, which my opponent has conceded, so I don't understand why my opponent continues to assert that 3rd parties have little popularity. That fact is irrelevant to my argument, and perhaps a testament to the fact that 3rd parties are being held back by the electoral college.

11) This debate is over whether it is better to have a popular vote or an electoral college decide the victor. The fact that the electoral college is the status quo should not count as a reason for its continued existence if it can be shown that a popular vote is better than an electoral college in theory. There are many examples of countries with popular vote elections deciding their president, so there is no shortage of empirical evidence as testimony to the success of popular votes. However, the fact that there is no other country quite like America would prove any direct comparison between ours and another countries system to be arbitrary.

Thank you for the debate.
The_Mad_Hatter

Con

Due to personal reasons, I will be having to leave debate.org for the time being.

That being said, I will be unable to complete any sort of argument.

My opponent and I have both made great points, it's up to the reader whether they agree with me or my opponent at the end of the debate.

I apologize to my fellow debater for having to do this.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
This debate actually has nothing to do with the Natural Law Party, it is a debate on the electoral college.
Posted by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
for the pro: i like how you turned your opponent's arguments about democracy against him with the electoral college - it is true that the more government intervention in a given matter, the more chance there is for corruption

however, this doesn't necessarily mean that they should be the dominant party in america - just because they make sense on one issue, that doesn't mean they will make sense on EVERY issue, and you have to remember that

i voted a tie - the pro's premise that it would increase the efficacy of the democratic process was interesting, however, as i said, this doesn't mean that they should be the ONE DOMINANT PARTY ON ALL ISSUES, and the pro needs to remember that: topicality of arguments
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
Correct, this debate does not include what I said in the title. As you said in your opening argument, that would be far too cumbersome of a debate, which is why I thought it better to debate individual points.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
And something else to clarify: Our debate does not include what you made as the title about how the Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America correct? Those would be two seperate debates.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
And to clarify: Hemp you would be Pro Abolishment of the Electoral College.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
Yes, I wish to go Con but not post the first argument.
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
Either one would be acceptable. If you agree to go Con on one of the main issues but do not wish to post the first argument, I will elaborate on the pro position for the first argument.
Posted by The_Mad_Hatter 8 years ago
The_Mad_Hatter
Does Con need to come up with a argument in their 1st round argument or just agree to go Con on something?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bignaked 8 years ago
bignaked
HempforVictoryThe_Mad_HatterTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
HempforVictoryThe_Mad_HatterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70