The Instigator
JacksonM123
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Shnoz1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The electoral college should be abolished

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 367 times Debate No: 106362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

JacksonM123

Pro

The electoral college is dumb.

It was only useful when it was invented during the Civil War, when the population was more spread out.

With the electoral college in place, there are candidates who America as a whole wants for her leader, and someone else wins! How is this fair or logical at all?

Now before you say that I'm a damn snowflake liberal who just wants to whine about losing, let me clear about something. First of all, I like snowflakes. When billions are on the ground outside my house, I don't have to have to go to school.

Secondly, I am a liberal. I am solidly liberal

Third, I understand that Mitt Romney won the popular vote against Obama, but Obama took the presidency anyway. Well, if America wanted Mitt Romney as a president, then so be it. He should have won. Let me be clear that I did not support Romney in any way, shape or form.

If someone comes back with a logical argument, I can do some research and cite some sources. I just don't feel like it right this moment.
Shnoz1

Con

I have taken the argument against my opponent, who believes that the Electoral College should be abolished. It is noted that their personal political affiliation is not subject to ridicule, and I encourage the voters to vote based on merit, not political standing. P.s. I don't have school tomorrow either!

To open, my opponent starts by blatantly stating that the electoral college is "dumb" with no further explanation or evidence to back that statement up. Secondly, my opponent states that
"It was only useful when it was invented during the Civil War when the population was more spread out." However, it should be noted that during the period between 1861 and 1864, the population of the United States was more centralized, with most of the population living on the Eastern Seaboard, from Maine to Florida. The Northwestern frontier was still relatively unexplored, and as a result, uninhabited. (By citizens of the United States) As for the creation of the Electoral College, the information that my opponent provides is false. The Electoral College began was ratified as a part of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787.

Thirdly, my opponent suggests that the entire population of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. By using the phrase "America as a whole wants [her] for [our] leader." my opponent openly misinforms the general public, by collectivizing the voting population, rather than allowing individualistic ideals in voting for president, my opponent instead bars the possibility that anyone wanted Donald Trump to win the presidency.

My opponent proceeds to ask "How is this fair or logical at all?" The way that the Electoral College works is that each state is allotted a certain number of representatives, based on total population per state. for example, New Hampshire is allowed four (4) representatives for its total population of 1.3 Million (as of 2017). California as allowed fifty-five (55) representatives for its total population of 39.5 Million. (2017) The number of allotted Electoral College members per state is dictated by the population itself. Let it be noted that the United States of America is a Democratic Republic, the system that my opponent purposes, that the majority vote of the general population should determine the seat of the presidency, is purely a Democratic system, which would require an entire overhaul of the United States political system to accomplish.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://constitutionus.com...
Debate Round No. 1
JacksonM123

Pro

Right off the bat, you should know that nobody likes to see wikipedia in a list of sources. Get rid of the habit now. Do it for your own good.

I said that the electoral college is dumb and then didn't back it up because I was tired and I planned on backing up that statement in the rest of my argument, so here we go!

I would now like to concede that I did mess up my facts a little bit. I apologize. I faintly remember learning about how the electoral college had something to do with the Civil War, and I didn't fact check myself. My bad. Anyway, the Electoral College was invented back when it was much more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair. But now it doesn't have any positive aspects, and on five separate occasions a candidate has won without the popular vote.

As for the Clinton thing, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL of America wants to elect Clinton. I said "America as a whole." What I meant was that the majority wanted Clinton for president so she should win. That is only fair

You still haven't answered why it's fair for the majority of Americans to support Clinton and yet Clinton is not in office. Also, please note that you could have substituted "Hillary Clinton" for "Andrew Jackson" or "Samuel J. Tilden" or "Grover Cleveland" or "Al Gore" because all of them won the popular vote but lost the presidency during their elections.

I agree that it would be difficult to reform the electoral college system into a pure democratic system, but it is much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair.
Shnoz1

Con

First of all, yes you are right about the Wikipedia thing, but if you clicked on the link you would have found that I used it as a source for population totals in New Hampshire and California.

Okay, you start by suggesting that the electoral college was more legitimate back in the 17, and 1800's based off of what? I don't mean to discredit your argument but you have no evidence to back up the claim that "It was more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair."

Second, Statistically, Donald Trump won the majority vote, by county. One thing you did not specify, was what exactly the majority was, which I assume is the general population. If you look at the 2016 electoral map by county you will see that the majority of Midwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern state counties are red. This is because the Republican Party choose to target the less populated areas in those regions, while the Democratic Party choose to target the densely populated areas of the Westcoast and Eastcoast, with the occasional county out west. By that record, Donald Trump appealed to the rural population over the urban population. In order to gain the necessary electoral votes, Donald Trump would have to gain a huge following in less populated states. With that combined, he won the majority vote by county. County goes to the state level, and if the state voted 2/3 in favor of one party, it's total electoral votes would go to that party.

Now answer me this. Why should the Electoral college be abolished? You've thrown around vague statements with little to no evidence or support from your own writing to back your claim up. Such as "How is this fair or logical at all?" and " much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair." How? you need to elaborate on your statements.
Debate Round No. 2
JacksonM123

Pro

Ok I'm going to elaborate now. I admit I have fallen short on that.

The purpose of establishing the electoral college was because the Founders were scared of a single man (or woman) influencing public opinion as a whole, being elected president, and becoming a dictator. They feared that a political agenda could easily overcome more than 50% of the population, so they created the electoral college to give everyone a fair and equal representation in the election

Source: https://www.factcheck.org...

I understand how Donald Trump. I understand the electoral college. But what I'm saying is the winner of the popular vote on the national level (Hillary Clinton) should have won the presidency. By the way, I said she won the "popular vote" in my previous argument. I think it's pretty obvious what that means. It means that she won the majority vote on the national level.

Now I will explain in simpler terms why the electoral college should be abolished. Imagine that you and 9 of your friends (making 10 people) are debating over which restaurant to go to. The whole group agrees that everyone will vote and everyone will have to go to the restaurant with the most votes. Everyone votes, and out of the 10 people there, Taco Bell gets 7 votes. But you all go to McDonalds anyway, even though it only got 2 votes. The group, as a whole or as a majority, wanted to go to Taco Bell, but you ended up with McDonalds.

Now let's expand this analogy by replacing 10 people with 30 million and replacing the choice of restaurant with the choice of our president in 2017. 48.2% of American voters chose Clinton. 46.1% of Americans chose Trump. Clinton won the popular vote on the national level. And no, there was not any voter fraud. Trump said over and over again that there was voter fraud but he did not present any kind of proof.

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

The contender has not presented any information that supports the idea of the electoral college being fair.
Shnoz1

Con

Firstly, You have given a scenario where 10 friends go out to eat, but can't decide between Taco Bell and McDonald's. The eventual outcome makes no sense in terms of connecting it to the electoral college. The vote among the ten friends is purely democratic. With the outcome of going to McDonald's with a vote of 2, is unrealistic, because there were no appointed representatives in your argument. Now, I'm not saying that the next time you and your buddies meet up and vote for something you should have third-party representatives to make the final call. Of course not, it would be insane. With such a small population it is easier to have a pure democratic voting system. However, when the population is increased to over 300 million, that is a different story, but I will elaborate on that later.

In the scenario you gave me, you expanded to encompass the presidential election. The main issue in this is that you have taken a sample population of 10, and then expanded it to 30 million, and then changing the outcomes to percentages. This is not comparable to your first statement because you didn't give population totals on the voting outcome.

Now, back to my original statement, The population of the United States is roughly 300 million. Previously you stated that: "The purpose of establishing the electoral college was because the Founders were scared of a single man (or woman) influencing public opinion as a whole, being elected president, and becoming a dictator. They feared that a political agenda could easily overcome more than 50% of the population, so they created the electoral college to give everyone a fair and equal representation in the election."
Personally, I would argue that it was fairer to have a purely democratic voting system during this time. The reason, lower population. During the 1700's obviously, popultion was lower and more centralized, thus giving the popular vote, the winning vote. As the population of the United States grew the democratic vote would become less convenient. This was under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation allowed the government to be run by a purely democratic system. With that, however, it was impossible to get anything done, such as amend the Articles. In order to add amendments to the Articles of Confederation, the Representatives would have to vote unanimously. This rarely happened, and thus the information/ powers granted to the Representatives was outdated and useless. This is where the Constitution comes into place. The Constitution was drafted and ratified by the states, making the United States a Democratic Republic, adding traditional Republican political systems into the Democratic system that we had at the time.

To answer your last point, How is the Electoral College fair? As I have mentioned before, the Electoral College is dictated by population totals. Like I said, if the majority vote for one party in a state is 2/3, that political party wins that state, and its electors. It is still a democratic system, just transferred to the state level. Your examples are collectivizing the voting population, but it is important to look at how the Electoral College works, not on the national level, but the state level. If you look at it this way, it is fair.

In short, this whole argument boils down to the governmental system of the United States. You call for the abolition of a political system that has been in place for 239 years. You previously agreed that it would be too difficult to transfer power to a pure democracy thus proving my point correct saying :
"I agree that it would be difficult to reform the electoral college system into a pure democratic system, but it is much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair."
Let it be noted that my opponent still has not given any evidence to support why the Electoral College system should be abolished, and how the governmental change would impact the people.
Thank you for debating this topic with me, and I wish you the best of luck.
I leave it to the voters to decide the outcome of this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by miinty 5 months ago
miinty
you cant keeping saying "its dumb" bring up real points
Posted by kasmic 5 months ago
kasmic
And the electoral college was around way before the civil war.
Posted by kasmic 5 months ago
kasmic
Mitt Romney didn"t win the popular vote...
No votes have been placed for this debate.