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

The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.

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
SurvivoAUS_HenryFan has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 104762
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election.

Direct election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%.
EC: Electoral College
GE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election.

Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!

My opponent may either use the first round to accept and make an opening argument, or to use it only to accept.



Here's the deal, I tend to agree with the notion of an electoral college in principal and in what it means in regard to a nation which holds democratic elections. The concept of states votes being lumped into a point system, taking the majority of plurality, and then that being lumped into a point system to be allocated based on the winner has, at least to me and a profusion of people, always seemed counterproductive to a functional democracy.

Among the popular arguments made against a direct democracy in regards to elections is for one the tyranny of the majority, an argument I find is efficiently debunked particularly from a master of rhetoric such as myself. Arguing that direct democratic elections would lead to the "tyranny of the majority" fails to be cognizant of a vital point that makes the notion contradictory, we already have a majority executing this alleged form of tyranny, just on a state by state level, so I would implore anyone who makes that case to ask themselves the desideratum inquiry, why is the majority having precedent over who is elected on a national level inherently worse than on a state by state level? Furthermore, is exercising a popular vote to decide who is elected tyrannic in any way, is judging the overall decision of a populace and basing a decision based off that and not of any special interests or dictatorial establishment the least tyrannic way of finding elected officials possible, I would content that it is.

The other common but asinine argument is that New York and California would not be the sole deciding factors in elections, an argument that, just as much as the aforementioned, fails to sustain itself on its own merit. As it stands, all that matters in regards to any candidate attaining of all of the delegates points from a state is the majority vote, and it's important to know what this means. This means that in democratically leaning states such as New York and California, campaigning, as it stands, is irrelevant and ineffectual because votes on an individual or municipal don't matter, but if we were to implement a popular vote, how would this change? Well to me, it's more than ostensible, as since every vote would matter candidates would be impelled to take every state seriously as every vote has a legitimate effect on the election, a simple majority would no longer be the threshold for attaining all a state has to offer in regards to how it contributes to an electoral victory. And finally on this vindication, it would be an accurate assessment that even in a popular vote system it is still true California and New York would be more influential in the outcome of the election than any other individual states, but to me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If those states have the highest population, then candidates, in a democratic election, should want to consider most heavily the areas with the highest population, as they, as it would intimate, have the most constituents of a democracy. It is the same reason why Representatives in the House of Representatives are decided proportionally based on state population, they have the most people affected by the nations government, and for that reason should have the most weight, in accordance with the previously denoted claim.

But why am I, as a master of rhetoric, making these grandiose intimations that seem to be counter persuasive to my cause here, the answer to that inquiry, is that I want to make clear all the claims I debunked are not the ones I will be making my argument on throughout this debate. As I said previously, I am an unwavering believer in the concept that, in form and principal, a popular vote is the ideal electoral system. But the notion I am far more dubious of, is that it is plausible in practice? That's the case I'll be making here, and you'll see that in the coming rounds of discourse, but for now, I'll rest the introductory round, subsequent of one more concise point.

I want to let my "opponent" here know that I am not obstinate on my position and the sole reason I accepted this is to gauge their response to the arguments I will present, because they will require some creative solutions in order to be succinctly responded to, so I accept their debate with the intent of seeing what they have to offer that might make a popular vote a viable system to implement.
Debate Round No. 1


The electoral college is a disaster for democracy. I think my opponent knows this, and would iike to focus on the practicality of a direct election, which I am fine with debating.

PM me if you have questions, but I believe you should start off, as you are playing devil's advocate here.

Fire away, good sir.


The electoral college, is, as my "opponent" said, contradictory to the fundamental tenets of democracy, and while I agree here, I am dubious of if the electoral college is a necessity to hold democratic elections.

Allow me to elaborate, with some historical evidence that is. First off, what I would say an advantage of the electoral college is would be that it results in landslide victories, and what this does is bring a sense of finality to the election. And for those asking just why this is a positive, simple, expediency. It creates an election result, that is, typically, easily ascertainable and reliable because it is based on a point system.

In the 2000 Presidential election, as I'm confident many know, there was a long standing recount battle between eventual President George W. Bush and Democratic Candidate and former Vice President under Bill Clinton, Al Gore. In that election, specifically in Florida, a state with the potential to decide the outcome of the electoral college, George W. Bush won by precisely 1,784 votes. This was less than an 0.5% difference in votes, and under Florida's state law, this correlates to an automatic vote recount. And penultimately, Bush won the machine vote recount, however, as Gore was allowed to do law, he ordered a hand recount of the votes. Now this election was embodies by controversy because of the flawed nature many of its ballots perpetuated, nonetheless Gore contested the recount for this very reason. To elaborate further, some of the Florida ballots, weren't perforated completely when voters cast their ballots, leaving some with chads that make it ambiguous who the person had cast their vote for. In total, these ballots, which came to be known as "hanging chad" ballots, totaled to about 9,000 in quantity. And as previously explicated, Gore contested the recount based on this rationale. His appeal eventually made it up to the U.S Supreme Court, and the highest court in the nation reversed the manual recount, with a proclamation that the state may "value one person's vote over that of another." The result of this was the sustaining of the decision made by the machine recount, Bush winning Florida, and henceforth all of its electors, and winning the presidency. This recount battle lasted a total of 36 days, over a month after the elections intended conclusion.

The point of citing this presidential election is to show that, when a popular vote is dealt with on even a state level, however superior I think a majority of us can agree that it is better in form, can remove the element of expediency that pervades the electoral college. And so I have to implore by "opponent" here to attempt to answer the question, which is objectively speaking an exigent question to answer, if we were to translate this format to a national level, where every vote is of desideratum importance, how would we handle any contentious election, in example the 2016 Presidential election, in a way which doesn't mandate an asinine amount of time an election should be dragged out for. On an election year the president elect has to be in office by January 20th the year subsequent the election's occurrence, and I don't see how, as the argument stands, this is an affirmed reality if an unmitigated popular vote is the implemented election system.

My argument here being stated, I would be more than satisfied if you could think of such a method, because I , and those I have spoken to on the issue, certainly haven't, and I wait to see what you can offer, because if this question could be answered in an all encompassing and objective way, I would immediately concede. As, I do think a popular vote, hypothetically, is the nonpareil system of holding elections, however I'm more than apprehensive of its applicable viability.
Debate Round No. 2


Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.

The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.

The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.

The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move.

Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by arugula278 7 months ago
"The system subverted democracy. WHO CARES YOU LOST GET OVER IT."
Posted by DarkPrince 7 months ago
Great so here we have another pissed off person upset that Clinton lost.
She lost get over it
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 8 months ago
Yeah that's the general idea, I like many others believe that even though a popular vote is in principal the superior system I think you leave the potential to run into a devastating expediency issue. And no, I used penultimate correctly because I don't say words if I don't know what they mean, I just know what every word means.
Posted by dtaylor971 8 months ago

You used "penultimate" wrong, twice, then googled the definition. You then looked back at the context of the quote and made up the "last" goal, even though you didn't even remotely insinuate it in the round.

And for the affirmative, negative's argument essentially boils down to:
- Popular vote would take too long and isn't as convenient as an electoral college verdict.
- Electoral college relies on a point system, which can result in large victories, offering a sense of finality to the election.

If you can think of a method in which the U.S Presidential Election can be decided timely, efficiently, and resoundingly without utilizing the Electoral College system, he will concede and you will win.
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 8 months ago
dtaylor971, the ultimate goal is for the people who receive all the information to decide who triumphed. And the electoral college is by no means a liability to democracy
Posted by arugula278 8 months ago
Wait so you are also arguing that the electoral college is a liability to democracy?

Posted by dtaylor971 8 months ago
"So specifically in the United States, the penultimate goal of this masterful example in discourse (which will be displayed by myself and myself alone) is to debate over whether the death penalty should be implemented or not. " -SurvivoAUS_HenryFan, from his other debate

So, tell me, what is the last goal (last in a series of things) if the "penultimate goal" is to debate the death penalty?
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 8 months ago
I use the word penultimate correctly all the time, the fact that you can't realize that tells me you don't actually know what the word means, and that clearly undermines your credibility
Posted by dtaylor971 8 months ago
The background information is not difficult to understand. When you needlessly load each of your sentences with a barrage of commas combined with unnecessary adverbs, the text becomes infuriating to read.

The sole thing that triumphs over your pretentiousness is your blinding narcissism. You're not a "master of rhetoric-" for f!cks sake, you can't even use the word "penultimate" correctly- you're a pompous jackass that seems to have swallowed a thesaurus.

Nearly every sentence you authored in Round 2 could have been smoothly stated, cohesive, and easily comprehendible to any audience. However, you seem intent in cramming each sentence with mildly misplaced adverbs in an attempt to display your dialect and superficial sophistication. For example:

"And penultimately, Bush won the machine vote recount, however, as Gore was allowed to do law, he ordered a hand recount of the votes."
Placing the prefix "pen" before "ultimately" doesn't make "ultimately" more impactful. It adopts an entirely new meaning. Cramming together two separate series of events doesn't make you a "master of rhetoric." Rather, it creates a confusing sentence that is antithetical to what you should try to accomplish in a debate.

I don't know why I'm so angered at this. I do want to ask one question: why do you adapt this type of writing style?
Posted by SurvivoAUS_HenryFan 8 months ago
Pretentious, these are somewhat confusing points to fully explicate because they deal with abstract concepts, but if you have sufficient rudimentary knowledge on the topic you should be able to figure out what both of us are saying fairly easily
This debate has 4 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.