The electoral college should not be abolished.
Debate Rounds (3)
First I will offer this observation: I will be comparing the electoral college to the popular vote to prove that the electoral college should be abolished because the popular vote is a better system.
On to my two main points.
1. The electoral college allows for misrepresentation of the people.
Sub point A: the electoral college presents the opportunity for the popular vote to get thrown by the wayside.
According to the usnews, in four of the nation's 56 presidential elections, the current system has permitted candidates to win a majority of the Electoral College (and hence, the presidency) without winning the most popular votes nationwide. That's one in 14 times.
Sub point B: faithless electors.
Faithless electors are members of the electoral college who for whatever reason, vote against their party's candidate. This is a negative effect as the people elect their electors to vote for the candidate the
According to CNN.com, Nine of the past 16 presidential elections have witnessed faithless votes (including two of the past three). Although none changed the outcome of an election, each faithless vote effectively disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of voters.
If we allow the electoral college to remain in existence, a door will continue to be open to ignore the voice of the people.
2. Popular vote will improve the voting system.
Sub point A: popular vote would be more unifying and also give the people more of a voice. Under the electoral college, the presidential campaign is voted state by state which is unfair to some smaller states such as South Dakota. The phrase "one vote equals one vote" is not true under the electoral college because you have one elector representing a few hundred thousand people under the electoral college. If we switched the electoral college out with the popular vote, we would no longer be voting by state but rather by person. Everyone's vote we equal exactly the same and it wouldn't matter which state you lived in because not every person in a state has the exact same political ideology.
Sub point B: switching to the popular vote would raise voter turnout.
According to progressive states.org,
For campaigns, there is no gain in encouraging increased turnout of their supporters in states where they can't get a majority or where they already have a safe win. Inevitably, a byproduct of the Electoral College is decreased turnout in less competitive states, since voters aren't e even being encouraged to vote by their own candidates. In 2004, voter turnout was 63% in the 12 most competitive states, while it was only 53% in the 12 least competitive states. Among young voters, the effect is especially profound with voter turnout among 18-29 year-olds was 64.4% in the 10 most competitive states and 47.6% in the remaining states "" a gap of 17%.
If we were to switch to the popular vote, we would see an increase in voter turnout for two reasons a. People would feel as if their counted more so and b. candidates would be forced to campaign on a broader playing field. Please cast a con ballot.
johannes forfeited this round.
It is hard to read down the flow of my opponents speach but i will try to pick out each argument and refute them as best as i can.
1. My opponents first point seems to be that the possibility of a recount in the national popular vote would be a huge problem.
My rebuttal to this is that if we switched to a national popular vote, the chances of a needing a recount would greatly decrease. According to the NewYorker, If you do the math, extrapolating from the frequency of statewide recounts for offices like governor and senator, you find that the likelihood of a nationwide election that"s anything remotely as close as Florida 2000"not just in absolute numbers (537 votes) or percentagewise (9,492 votes)"is preposterously low. How low? Well, in a national popular-vote election, a disputable result"one close enough to be theoretically reversible via a recount"could be expected to occur at intervals ranging between once every 640 and once every 1,328 years.
Also according to the same article, even if a recount did need to happen, It still wouldn't be recounted a national scale, every state can still do a recount within their state in a timely and orderly manner.
2. My opponent claims that if we switched to a National Popular vote, the voting age would be lowered.
My rebuttal to this doesn't even need to be backed by evidence. For one thing, my opponent hasn't had any evidence saying that this will happen and secondly, my opponent has no proof that if this does happen it would have negative impacts.
I am running out of time as i am leaving town and won't have access to internet for a day so this is my argument.
johannes forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.