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

The United States should establish a national primary.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 1/26/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 655 times Debate No: 85563
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Just a warning: This is my first debate.

It would be preferred if you would cite sources.



No national primary. This would not be a good idea because of the wide ranging ideas. Primaries have several debates prior to the vote, so how would we do that with 15 Republicans and 3 Democratic major candidates and their many smaller ones. Also, what about the 150+ over candidates from parties other than the 2 big ones? There are too many variables, the proceedings would be time consuming, and a national primary would destroy parties that are required in America's democracy so each house has some sort of leader. Removing the state/party primary would only lead us down a path of more conformity and less organized parties for people to become something.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry, but the first round was only for acceptance :) You can post your arguments in this round.

I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points.

The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available.

My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named "13 states that matter". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few.

The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple.

With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don"t seem to meet anyone"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process.
(Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University)

My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.


If you are speaking of unfairness, why do you not care about how states such as New York and California are always Democratic and the Republican voters have little chance to vote there. This seems hypocritical to want democracy but then nit want to get rid of the elector college, in which the electors can vote for anyone. This isn't even a rare thing, as 157 electors have done this.

This though isn't a problem because the Constitution sets up the college, and as such while it didn't need to be discussed, is proof of your lack of real commitment to democracy, or rather wanting to change something small but not the big problem.

Second, you say that it doesn't represent the population, but in the 2012 GOP Primary, Romney had a similar support of popular votes to poll numbers in which he won 52% of the primary votes, and had an average of 40%+ in the polls throughout most of January 2012 on.

Third, political parties are not a national government organization that is made to be equal, but rather a state thing and as such is made to represent a states interest. Smaller states need to go first Democrats and Republicans have agreed so that they are not over looked. Iowa has 30 while New Hampshire has 23, which is small as the number of delegate is 2286. That is very miniscule. Also, Rick Santorini won Iowa and still lost the 2012 nominee. Romney though did win New Hampshire which does help your cause. This though can be disproven as Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 but Obama won the nominee, as well as how John McCain won 2000, but lost to George W. Bush. McCain won 2008 and John Kerry won 2004 but that along with the facts before shows the inconsistency.
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to start by refuting your case on my hypocrisy. My democracy far outweighs your democracy argument. You say that some voters don't have their vote count because they live in an area that is focused on the opposite party, but in total, the states have an equal amount of support for each candidate, please refer to this picture, which is of the states voting in the Romney, v Obama run.

i would also like to refute that by saying that majority simply rules. If you are in a room, and asked to choose a candidate among 19 others, and 11 of those people choose democratic, but you chose republican, that isn't a failing in democracy but simply majority ruling. Also, the plan is to replace this electoral college system, as I will state in my third point, which is The U.S. needs this new system for voting.

National primary is a new and good way of voting, and has proven to be much better than what we have now.

National primary is even more popular with the public than our current system. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. And if that seems outdated, a more recent national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary.

This proves that national primary is much, much more favored than what we currently have. A national primary may even bring in more voters because more people are content with the system and think that their vote is actually going to count. Speaking of, when people don"t vote, it destroys democracy, especially when people aren"t happy with the system and are voting because of that. This happens because people who would have had a vote instead don"t vote because they know it won"t count.

As USC Professor Geoffrey Cowan in the Los Angeles Times points out that critics have identified countless problems with the current process including campaign finance laws that give inordinate influence to big donors; limits on voter registration and participation; and the power granted to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to cast votes. The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have "closed primaries" where only party members can vote?


I agree that a majority rule is a good method in a democracy. A new point I have come to my attention and it regards the fact that a political party is not government run, but rather a private institution made to work for governments.

This is shown when George Washington specifically stated that we should not have, "the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party." Washington of course meant political parties, and how they would destroy the government because they weren't part of the government themselves. This shows that they aren't part of the government and as such don't require a democratic process, just like how a local small chain business doesn't have an elected president, but rather they are the founder or the founder's family/friends.

One could show how he was fighting against this, and it is true, but America has gone through 200+ of political parties and we have made it through the Civil War with both Republicans and Democrats working together, and the Cold War where we did the same thing, but for 40+ years with 8 presidents, 4 of each party. The fact of what he is fearing though is still that they aren't part of the government and as such don't need to be guided by democracy.

These all leads to my point, a party doesn't have to follow a government procedure, and as such could in theory just pick a candidate. This isn't done for the same reason Walmart doesn't sell sex toys, they do what will help them, Walmart staying family friendly so they can keep their credibility and not lose profits, while parties keep the process for the sake of keeping their respective conservative or liberal members.

Now to disprove your arguments. The link you provided about the Romney v. Obama elector map showed that the states were divided 26+D.C. to Romney 24. This is a ratio of 88.88%, but the popular vote is 92.42%. If this doesn't show a difference and how majority rule isn't as majority as it is, 62.04%. This means that the popular vote is close to 46/50, but the state to state ratio is 44/50, and the elector ratio is 31/50. A majority does win, but what about in 1828, 1876, 1888, and 2000 when they didn't happen, so what would make a national primary with still party electors any different?

Next is the point you put out with the surveys. I couldn't find them, so I will disregard them as they could simply have been from a satanic, brown, triple horned unicorn hove.

The problem with campaign finances isn't caused by the differing primary dates and don't affect them. The following Wikipedia article, which can be used in this instance since facts as blunt as these are easier to show in a bulk article then having people switch from one to the other (links will be provided at the bottom) shows who won each GOP Primary state. It proves that while Romney won the nominee, Iowa was won by Rick Santorum, the first primary state, South Carolina was won by Newt Gingrich, the third state. This shows that states going first doesn't change the out come.

Also, why would we want to open our closed primaries. Would you want Trump supporters voting for O'Malley so that neither Hillary nor Sanders could win their nominees and give the weakest of the candidates the chance to win and nearly assuring a Republican election.

If you are suggesting that we have every nominee run and then the top 2 go on, then you are asking for a complete over hull of our American system, leading to a repeat of the 1837 banking crisis where the instant transition from bank notes to gold coins led to an economic collapse. A drastic change like this would almost certainly lead to some sort of collapse of our political system.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hayd 8 months 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's main argument was that a national primary establishes an effective democracy. This is powerful since fairness outweighes unorganization and other arguments Con makes. Con's rebuttal of this was that people who live in states like California don't get their voice heard if they aren't democratic. But Pro shows that democracy is majority rules, and thus negating it. Con drops that rebuttal and thus Pro's argument still stands. As fairness in government outweighs all other arguments, and as Pro points out; what the presidential election is built on, Pro wins.