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

The electoral college should be banned.

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  
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: 3/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 51259
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I think the the electoral college should be replaced by the alternative vote.

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2-4: Arguments
Round 5: Closing Statements.


I gladly accept the negation side.

As the affirmative begins, I would ask for a definition of the advocacy of the pro side. Both what is meant by an "alternative vote" and how that functions differently than the electoral college would be nice. Additionally for the purpose of concise debating, it'd be helpful to hear an advocacy with a defined method of implementation.
Debate Round No. 1


I think this video does a good job of explaining it:;
To implement it is hard, considering, like stated in the video, it gives less power to the 2 main parties. And since those 2 parties are the ones who are able to decide if it passes, it probably is impossible to pass. Though it's nice imagining getting that that system.


I see. Thank you for the video! That was an interesting idea I hadn't learned much about.

I will start by listing my disadvantages then move on to case.

1. Counter-advocacy

A. Framework

1. The best way to understand policy is through a test of methodology to deem it necessary.

2. The negation should get 1 test of the pro's methodology.
(a) In this case, the test comes in the form of a counter-advocacy, or counterplan

3. The counter-advocacy is not really an advocacy. You don't vote con because con does this. The purpose of the counter-plan is to show that there is an alternative to the affirmation that avoids the disadvantage that will be given

B. Plan Text

The US should adopt a coalition based parliamentary system

C. Solvency

1. This resolves the major issue brought forward, as it allows for parties to compete in a sphere in which, in order to gain a true majority, major parties must make concessions with ideologically distinct parties in order to ensure they hold enough support
(a) Look to the UK, the current system in place has resulted in a government formed by two very different parties that have bargained to win a majority
(b) This also gives minority parties a greater voice, as rather than being excluded from the process entirely, unpopular parties are accounted for as a coalition is formed through both parties reaching concensus between eachother to combine support, meaning that their policy desires are reflected.

2. This better solves for the affirmative case
(a) Unlike the affirmative's proposition, this negates the unwanted effects of the two party system entirely

3. Again, I am not making this advocacy, I am simply using this to critique the pro as more plausable options exist. I do not give myself fiat


A. Uniqueness

1. Voter turnout is on the brink now
(a) No recent election has exceeded a 2/3 voter turnout rate

2. Voter turnout is inherently linked to apathy
(a) voter alienation is the most obvious reason why a person wouldnt vote, although others certainly exist

3. Political parties have a better ability to raise funds
(a) Proportionately, fundraising has inherently increased with party organization

B. Links

1. Voter turnout is heavily influenced by the efforts of parties
(a) To encourage a positive outcome, parties engage in in efforts to increase voter turnout
(b) Many of these efforts involve advertising and awareness campaigns

2. Political parties make the process easy to understand
(a) Political parties simplify the issues, allowing ease of engagement to people without the resources or time to fully understand the intracacies of the political realm
(b) despite party bias's, the information provided by parties would still be preferable to the lack of information that would lend to an aristocratic democracy where only the elite and educated have political voice

C. Internal Links

1. The plan decreases the power of the two parties to gain funding
(a) By decentralizing the parties, a lot of parties get a little bit of money
(b) as result, the net awareness generated goes down significantly, as a lot of money is needed to make an impact, and a multitude of parties ensures no party reaches the threshold

D. Impacts

1. Politics of Disposability
(a) Cross apply the 2nd link argument. The absense of participation inherently lends to an elitist system
(b) This is harmful because it marginalizes smaller popluations
(c) As persons lose their political agency, they become disposable
(d) A person with no value becomes a statistic, and atrocities committed against them become justified in their percieved lack of worth
(e) Perpetuating elitist systems that lower one's value to life is worse than an actively murderous advocacy as losing one's agency and concious awareness makes them tools, carrying out an existence that is not of their own agency

On Case

I present the following responses to your claims:

1. The implimentation of such would require logistical nightmares to occur
(a) the judicial branch would be given excessive power as a moderator of elections
(b) Look to the 2001 election to see how the judicial branches gain power in election crises
(c) This negates the balance of power that lends to the functionality of the US system

2. Alternate voting requires unrealistic assumptions. The belief that all people who voted for person X as their number 1 also voted person Y as their number 2 is improbable. As result there is a statistically frustrating electorate system that is neither pragmatic or logistically smooth

3. Debating things that are nice to imagine but impractical is counterproductive.
(a) When one looks at the world through the lense of what would be pleasant rather than examining real world impacts, one loses the ability to think critically and becomes too esoteric
(b) In choosing to ponder idealistic views, one becomes easily swayed by leaders seeking to advantageously use impractical utopian beliefs to gain power. An example of this has been shown in "communist" leaders, who hardly upheld communism but exploited it's theoretical worth for power
(c) Not debating real world issues destracts one from finding solutions. When one sees problems and thinks "oh, wouldnt it be nice if xyz was true", they shift their moral responsibility off of them, as they have developed a solution, but not a real solutions. This deters real solutions as critical analysis runs dry and participation in constructive debate is curtailed.

Debate Round No. 2


The voter turnout is a entirely different problem. Actually I think it would improve voter turnout. It would give more power to smaller parties which many people support but know don't have a chance, so they don't vote.


blarson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


lightingbolt50 forfeited this round.


blarson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


lightingbolt50 forfeited this round.


blarson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.