The Instigator
Frost_troll
Pro (for)
The Contender
Perspectivist
Con (against)

The electoral college ought to be abolished.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Frost_troll has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 169 times Debate No: 106140
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

Frost_troll

Pro

R1 is for acceptance.
Perspectivist

Con

The electoral colleges encourage candidates to focus their attention on different parts of the United States instead of just targeting voters in only a specific part of the country. California, Texas, New York, Ohio and Florida, states with some of the highest electoral college votes, are found in different locations in the U.S. These states have a large distance between them so that candidates do not focus their attention only to the Midwest, the south and other partial areas of the U.S. but to all areas of the U.S. Some may argue that if candidates do not hold their campaigns in states with small electoral college votes voters within these sates are not aware of each candidates plans. This is untrue. For example, the grey party candidate gives a speech in Texas. It is highly likely that Texas's neighbouring states and other southern states will know about what was discussed from: the influence of the people of Texas, the news, social media and many other forms of communication used by the public to express its political views. If the electoral colleges are abolished then candidates will be biased to states with a high population and forget about the rest of the United States. Another reason people disagree with the electoral colleges is the misconception that it disregards the popular votes. With over 40 elections held in the U.S. there were only 3 instances where the candidate with the most popular votes lost the elections. Those who will vote in the electoral colleges is determined by the voters. Each candidate has a set number of electors in their states. These electors will vote on their behalf if the people vote for them by voting for the candidate. The candidate must have over 50% of a state's popular vote for his party's electors in that state to be allowed to cast electoral votes. Your votes do matter! The reason the founders placed electoral college in the constitution instead of having a completely democratic country is because if you study most of history, a purely democratic society isn't always fair. Therefore, there is some modifications which are necessary to a successful country and for the United States the electoral colleges is one of them. The founders put the electoral colleges in place to ensure that the country is given all that is necessary to thrive.
Debate Round No. 1
Frost_troll

Pro

The value is morality as it is consistent with the word ought in the resolution. The standard is the veil of ignorance. Prefer because 1) allows us to see past our biases and into what a truly just world would look like. 2) the veil grants equal freedom and power to each individual. 3) the purpose of justice is to ensure the state doesn't discriminate against people based on factors they cannot control. Next is the contention. Abolition of the electoral college system is consistent with the veil of ignorance. 1) The electoral college is unpopular with the American public. Per Gallup 16, only 47% of Americans support the electoral college system. 2) The electoral college grants unequal power to some. Under the electoral college, some people"s votes are worth more than others, i.e in California the proportion of votes per electoral vote is higher than in Wyoming. 3) Political inequality is inconsistent with the veil. If we are establishing a society under the veil no one would say that certain people's votes are worth more than others.

Case.
1) Turn, the electoral college disincentivizes candidates from traveling to different parts of the country. Example, dems don"t waste time in Texas because they know they will never win the state, but under a popular vote system they would be incentivized to appeal to the millions of democrats there.

2) You say candidates will only focus on states with large populations, but 1. you have no warrant, 2. your arg doesn't make any sense as small states are worth very few points in the electoral college, 3. they shouldn't have to appeal to a small state if they are popular with the majority.

3) Next onto your point about there only being 3 instances where the loser of the electoral college won the popular vote this: 1. Proves that the electoral college doesn't fairly represent the will of the people. 2. All times it happened with a republican victor, proving the system"s inherent bias against democrats.

4) 1. How is a democratic society unfair, you give no warrant. 2. I only advocate for a society that is moral under the veil of ignorance, which a society without the electoral college is.

5) Constitution is bad it limited the ability of blacks/women to vote.
Perspectivist

Con

It is a pleasure debating with you.

According to your argument the electoral colleges is a system unpopular with the American people. The evidence you had supporting this was "Per Gallup 16, only 47% of Americans support the electoral college system." However, the electoral colleges are swiftly gaining the public trust. Earlier only 35% of the people trusted the electoral college but now that number rose to 47%.
http://news.gallup.com...
This indicates that people are beginning to see the electoral colleges as the fair and just system it is.

You stated that under the electoral college, some peoples votes are worth more than others. Let us examine the two states you used as examples in your argument. California has an estimated population of 39,535,653 people [https://www.census.gov...] and a total of 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has an estimated population of 579,315 people [https://www.census.gov...] and 3 elector votes. You argued that the votes in Wyoming are worth more than the votes in California under the electoral college. I wish to make two things clear:
1. California is still a state with an outstanding amount of electoral votes
2. Wyoming's voters, compared to those in California would be disregarded in a first past the post voting system on the national scale. For example, if all of Wyoming voted for democrats and half of California voted republican then the republican candidate will be in the lead and this will be unfair to those in Wyoming. So a popular vote system would still be unfair.

You said that in those instances where the popular votes lost, a republican candidate was the victor and that this system possesses "bias against democrats" but their were many instances were democrats won the elections. Bias would mean that the system would not allow the democratic candidates to win at all. Barack Obama won the election against Mitt Romney when it came to both popular and electoral votes. As far as unfair goes this proves nothing. The electoral colleges allows both candidates an equal shot at winning the elections. Let us look at one of those instances. In the 2016 elections President Trump won the electoral votes by flipping states. Trump also had more states under his influence than Clinton did.
https://www.cnbc.com...

Voter fraud is much harder to commit with the electoral college system since it requires some very difficult steps. Steps which candidates wouldn't bother to waste time and money on. These steps are described in the following:
"First, at the national level, the election needs to be close enough that altering the results in only one or two states would change the outcome.
Second, the margins in those contested states must also be very close. Such elections are fairly rare. The election of 2000 was one such election: Florida could have changed the outcome, and the margin in that state was vanishingly small.
A third criterion may be the hardest to meet. Assuming the election is close, dishonest actors must be able to predict which state (or states) will be close enough to influence the final results." [ http://dailysignal.com...]

You said I had not specified how a democratic election is unfair and for this I am sorry. So let us assume that a candidate in a country where the popular votes decide the winner says that the teachers of that country ( who are paid an incredibly low salary) must have a pay cut of 50%. 2/3 of the population are pro-business and 1/3 pro-labor. The candidate wins the election and enacts the policy. It is fair by majority but unfair to minority and that is the system that you promote. If the will of the people is such that ( even though it is fulfilled by democratic means ) it negatively affects others, how can it be fair? An electoral colleges system takes into consideration the people by having politically experienced electors decide what is right or wrong for the country. Remember these electors are chosen by the people.

You claim that democrats know they cannot win Texas which is why they keep their distance from the state. But the electors coming from Texas (who are republican) are voted in by the people. This can only happen if the people vote republican. So your argument that in a popular vote the democrats would win Texas has no foundation.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Perspectivist 2 weeks ago
Perspectivist
Candidates can only flip swing states if the people vote for his/her electors. No vote is disregarded because in order for that party's elector to be sent to congress the majority of people residing in the state must vote for the candidate. Although it is within the rights of a republican elector to vote democrat, it is rare.
Posted by BackCommander 2 weeks ago
BackCommander
Plenty of people have wanted the electoral college abolished for longer than this last election cycle, so every point you're trying to make involving Hillary and Trump falls flat on its face. No matter how any of you wish to word it, the electoral college is an institution against democracy. The representatives don't have to vote the way their people do, that's the only point that should be needed to convince people that it isn't in their best interest. In fact, 90% of a state's citizens could vote Republican and their electoral college votes could still be given to the Democrat candidate. That nullifies every single vote the citizens gave to the Republican candidate.

It takes about five seconds to figure out that every reason you list for the existence of the college is completely illogical. "Its so candidates won't just go to specific states and have to travel around more" Oh sorry, I was over here thinking about how much time the candidates always spend in "swing states." "What about all the state's in between the swing states?" I can practically hear you ask yourself because you've forgotten who the Weight brothers were. We have these things called airplanes, and using these magical devices, candidates can completely skip over states which routinely vote for their party anyways and only focus on the states that are in the grey. The electoral college is idiotic and we all know it. If you think your vote matters in a country where it can literally be disregarded because your state swings the other way, you're too ignorant to have your opinion to be taken seriously when it comes to matters such as these.
Posted by KZC 2 weeks ago
KZC
People really need to think clearly before they begin protesting against the Electoral College. I'll explain some reason:
1) It is highly possible that Hillary did not get the popular vote because of voter fraud
2) The reason Trump won is due to the winner-take-all system, which is not what the Founding Fathers had intended
3) Even without the winner-take-all system, neither candidates (Trump and Hillary) would reach the 270 electoral votes (because there are third parties and stupid electors (the ones who cast votes to non-competing candidates)
4) Electoral College is a system used for hundreds of years, which is logical and effective (the reason for massive protests is because Hillary didn't win)
5) Popular vote undermines other people who aren't living in major cities (guess what, the electoral college was established by the Founding Fathers because otherwise Virginia would have the most representation because they had more voters than many other states combined)
6) Electoral College is actually more based on popular votes (electoral votes are based on the number of senators and the state's population; for instance, Colorado has 9 electoral votes (2 senators and 7 House Reps); when one cast their votes, their votes are to vote for their elector (this means that in one county there are 3 possible electors (R, D, I), whoever gets the most votes will represent the county))
* You know what we should do? Get RID of Washington D.C.!
7) Electoral College benefits smaller states (I am talking about you guys up in the Northeast.)
8) People aren't educated enough on the government process.
9) Most electors are binded and vote according to the popular vote of their county, with some exceptions (the few in WA, the one in HI and ME who voted for Sanders (Sanders can't be on the ballot))

Conclusion?
Electoral College is:
Citizens vote for electors, electors vote for president....but there is gerrymandering and the winner-take-all system
Posted by Animayer 2 weeks ago
Animayer
Con won the argument in the first round!
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.