The Instigator
Leonitus_Trujillo
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
DKguy0609
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 1410
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (8)

 

Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

Often times for a Mayor position or a city council positions most people have no ideas that an election is even taking place much less vote. So a relatively few amount of people decide the leaders of a comparatively large population. This isn't the fault of the people they have their own lives to live, and unless there is a specific pressing issue that has gotten to the point where they are mad, they aren't really motivated to vote. Now I think that is bad, because it makes us rely on Cliff-Edge election politics. Were people are only driven to vote when there is a problem instead of taking into account who is running and who would be the best for the job.

Now this happen's in the city level with city commissioners and mayors, also the county level with county commissioners. And to a large degree state legislatures also go through this.

I don't believe this is a really representative means of public offices competition always breads the best person for the job, and were there isn't an atmosphere of significant competition we're not going to bet the best person for the job.

So what I offer is a different system. A National Election's Congress -not to be confused with our regular congress. This congress See's each U.S. district vote in Electors into the Congress. The role of this congress is to year round find the best person's suitable for the public office's that are due for elections. The Congress would be split into two or more champers. The East Chamber and the west Chamber, or more regional chambers.

The best way to see how it works, is to see a case study- then I will break down the system later. For example the city I live in is plantation. Our city government has 5 commissioners and one Mayor.
Traditionally the people seeking that office will file and intent to run form with the registrar for that county. On election day people would come vote and the person with the highest votes wins the office.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
With an Elector System. A person seeking the office of Mayor/commissioners would file an intent to run form with their county registrar. From that moment they can campaign and seek citizen-endorsements. A citizen can go to their cities designated location and file a a citizen-endorsement for that candidate. They would be able to do this from the moment the person running for office submits their intent to run form with the country registrar, until the deadline. The candidates would be campaigning for a while for citizen-endorsements until the deadline , then they would be given an appointment to appear before their regional chamber of the National Elections Congress.

If a candidate failed to receive 10% of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they are automatically denied. On the other hand if a candidate received 2/3 of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they automatically get appointed. If a candidate is not in those two categories they present themselves before the Congress give a speech talk about their record. Before hand the Congress would have their resume and Political record if applicable. After this congressman may take the floor and argue their position in regards to who should get the job. And finally the matter is put up before a vote, the winner of that vote wins the office.

I think this is a great system to elect mayors and commissioners and state legislatures, because it makes sure that there is good competition. Instead of a small voter turn out effecting the entire population, voter turn out is a plus but it isn't the determining factor. With the Electoral appointment system every time there is an election below the governor level , merits are evaluated and a decision is made based a compromise of who is best for the job and who has the most support.

I think this country should switch to an Electoral appointment system. It may sound far out, but thats probably becuase this is the first time anybody has heard of it. The elections of the elector's themselves that would be sent to this congress would be paired with the Presidential election, you would vote for them on the same ballot as your president, and this ensures a high voter turn out.
DKguy0609

Con

Your system is way too complex for simple positions like mayor and counselman. One reason people don't vote is because they don't understand how their vote will make a difference. How is putting peoples' votes through a middle man (your proposed added congress) helping the weight of their vote? It gives them no more motivation. If anything, all it does is complicate the system. You failed to explain how the congressmen would get elected. I agree with you on the fact that people should use their right to vote more often, but this is not the solution. It is a waste of money.
Debate Round No. 1
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily.

Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time.

Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time.

I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.
DKguy0609

Con

I just don't think your system will give fair representation because these "congressmen" will not be in 100% agreement with the people they get their support from.
Debate Round No. 2
Leonitus_Trujillo

Pro

oops iI accidnetlay posted this as a comment.

That is true. But neither is the mayor, legislture or commissioner that any given person supports. However there's a problem when not only do those mayor's are not in 100% agreement with their constituents, but that they aren't even in agreement at all with the majority of their constituents because they do not even participate in the election. This system would bring every candidate for those office's under scrutiny by a professional board representing the people's best interest. It does not eliminate the direct vote, they are turned into citizen-endorsements that carry a weight when reviewed by the congress. And additionally have two direct powers, to eliminate candidates with week showings, and to eliminate all opposition candidates when endorsements get to the 2/3 level.
DKguy0609

Con

DKguy0609 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
No way local elections should go through such a complex system. And who is going to regulate it in the first place?
Posted by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Your proposed system is way too complex, and would have the unfortunate effect of consolidating municipal, county, and state power (which should be spread out rather thinly) into the hands of one "congress". For example, if Democrats were in power in a particular "region" then all of that congress's votes would be slanted Democratic, causing total mis-representation of the areas within that region that may be predominantly Republican. The same, of course, works in reverse as well.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
That is true. But neither is the mayor, legislture or commissioner that any given person supports. However there's a problem when not only do those mayor's are not in 100% agreement with their constituents, but that they aren't even in agreement at all with the majority of their constituents because they do not even participate in the election. This system would bring every candidate for those office's under scrutiny by a professional board representing the people's best interest. It does not eliminate the direct vote, they are turned into citizen-endorsements that carry a weight when reviewed by the congress. And additionally have two direct powers, to eliminate candidates with week showings, and to eliminate all opposition candidates when endorsements get to the 2/3 level.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by erkifish26 9 years ago
erkifish26
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by snoboguy1230 9 years ago
snoboguy1230
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kylevd 9 years ago
kylevd
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JoeDSileo 9 years ago
JoeDSileo
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by zakkuchan 9 years ago
zakkuchan
Leonitus_TrujilloDKguy0609Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03