The Instigator
OhioGary
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

We Need More Representatives In The House Of Representatives

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,436 times Debate No: 29647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

OhioGary

Pro

I'm interested in having a spirited discussion of the issues associated with Congress setting it's maximum size at 435 voting representatives for a population of over 313 million people.I will be arguing in favor of the resolution.Rules:Let's have a civilized debate. No biting and/or comparison of opponent's mother to various wild animals, please! :)Provide the sources for any facts introduced in the debate.4 rounds of debate: 1st round is for introductions only.Last round is for conclusions/summary; no new material added in the last round.
imabench

Con

I believe that we do not need more representatives in the US house of Representatives since it will not lead to any conspicuous benefit.

Other then that I accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
OhioGary

Pro

I thank my opponent for agreeing to this online debate and look forward to our discussion about the size of the House of Representatives. I firmly believe that we can begin to fix our problem in Congress by increasing the size of the House of Representatives. A larger House of Representatives will create a legislative body that more closely resembles the personalities and values of the American people. Additionally, more Representatives will address the problems with campaign finance issues and reduce the need for Congressmen to spend inordinate amounts of time fundraising to keep their Congressional seats. A larger House of Representatives would also create a larger Electoral College which will reduce or eliminate the variances between the popular vote and the Electoral College in Presidential elections.

The only way to fix Congress is to allow more people into the process. A larger House of Representatives puts more people into the process. For these reasons, you should vote Pro on this resolution in all categories.

More Reps would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people.

The House of Representatives was designed to represent populations. In fact, our bicameral legislation came about via the Great Compromise that created two separate houses of legislature [1]. The House of Representatives was designed to represent the population directly and the size of the House set its size after each census until the size of the House was permanently set at 435 via the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929[2].

A larger House of Representatives would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people. Average Americans have become fed up with those who are sent to Congress. According to a recent poll by Fox News:

Dissatisfaction with Congress is so high that by a two-to-one margin voters think an “everyday American” could do a better job handling the country’s problems than most members of Congress (63-31 percent).[3]

A Pro vote signals that you believe that government legislation should be written and voted upon by a representative group of Americans.

More Reps would fix campaign finance issues.

Congressional campaigns cost significant sums of money. According to recent data:

All candidates for the U.S. House and Senate raised about $1.2 billion in the first year-and-a-half of the election cycle, compared with just a shade under that at the same time in 2010 and nearly $945 million in 2008. The average Senate incumbent has an advantage of about 11:1 over the average challenger. House incumbents hold a 7:1 advantage over their challengers, on average. [4]

Those who are in Congress must spend inordinate amounts of time fundraising for their reelection campaigns instead of reading legislation or serving their constituencies. Not only does this take the sitting member of Congress away from working for their constituents, but it discourages qualified challengers from mounting a re-election campaign for inability to raise large sums of money. We end up having many members of Congress running for reelection with no challengers whatsoever. When the American people do not have a choice in Congressional elections because no challenger would (or could) run, our democracy fails.

Smaller Congressional Districts would not require as much campaign money because each Representative would campaign to smaller constituencies. Smaller constituencies would also be able to hold their Congressmen accountable by either advocating for a replacement, or mounting an election campaign of their own. Outside money, commonly coming in the forms of PAC contributions, would be less likely to target individual Congressional races when more Representatives exist.

More representatives in Congress will move representation away from outside funding interests and towards the constituency who votes. A Pro vote supports this notion.

More Reps would minimize, or eliminate, the issues occurring between the popular vote & the Electoral College.

Finally, we must discuss how the size of the House of Representatives affects the size of the Electoral College used to elect the President of the United States.

The size of the Electoral College is determined by the number of members of the House & Senate, with a Congressional Amendment giving 3 Electoral votes to DC.[5] More Reps would give all states more electors in the Electoral College; therefore, a larger Electoral College would more closely resemble the popular vote.

If states choose to allocate their electors on a proportional or Congressional district basis, then Presidential elections will then have to develop campaign strategies for not only all states but all populations within states.

Adding seats to the House of Representatives will not only reform the House elections, but also reform the Presidential elections. This is precisely why a Pro vote to add more seats to the House of Representatives what we citizens must demand in order improve our Federal government.

In conclusion, Americans have become increasingly frustrated with the inability of Congress to get anything done. Americans have stated that average Americans can do a better job of running the country than the people we elect to Congress. Why can’t average Americans run for Congress? Simply put, an average American is not able to raise millions of dollars to mount a campaign to unseat an incumbent Congressman. In addition, Americans (as well as many on the Debate.org website) have decried a failure in the reliability of the Electoral College as it has often produced different results from the popular vote.

Just like a doctor must treat the cause of the problem and not the symptoms, we must also find out what causes an inability for average people to become Congressmen and why the Electoral College can produce significantly different results from the popular vote. The cause of both of these symptoms is a House of Representatives that has not appropriately expanded with the growing population of the US. An increase in the House of Representatives is long overdue, and we need to increase the size of the House right away.

References:

[1] http://www.senate.gov...

[2] http://history.house.gov...

[3] http://www.foxnews.com...

[4] http://www.opensecrets.org...

[5] http://www.pbs.org...

imabench

Con

1) "More Reps would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people."

Pro's first argument is that more representatives would mean the House would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people. This is merely a claim though, and when you break down the makeup of both parties, along with what kind of people are actually elected to the house of representatives in the first place, then it becomes apparent that more representatives would not resemble the american people, it simply wouldnt change.

Take the Republican party, who in the last elections actually lost diversity they barely had in the first place and shifted further towards what people already stereotype them as (A bunch of old white guys)
http://www.cnn.com...

If the House was expanded by a little or by a lot, there is no evidence that suggests the party will diversify and have more minorities elected into the house thanks to these extra seats. It is very likely that it would just further exacerbate the gap between the makeup of the House and the american public where more white men are added to Congress. The Republican party has held control of the house for the last 10 elections in a row, and if the bigger party is witnessing shrinking diversity, then more seats will just add to the gap that already exists.

"Dissatisfaction with Congress is so high that by a two-to-one margin voters think an “everyday American” could do a better job handling the country’s problems than most members of Congress"

Americans hate Congress, that is a well known fact. However most Americans still heavily approve of their own senators. Take the Senator with the worst approval rating in the country (Mitch McConnell at 59% approval and 28% disapproval) His ratings are the worst out of any individual senator, yet Congress would DREAM of the approval rating that McConnell has.
http://www.politico.com...

People dont like Congress, but they sure do like their own congressmen that they elected. This means that Americans dislike the other congressmen who are in Congress, not those who they voted for and elected. Adding more people into Congress would just further exacerbate dissatisfaction with Congress and instead push Congress's approval ratings even lower, not higher.

If you think about it further, adding more members to the House would only further exacerbate the problem of gird-lock and inefficiency that already plagues Congress today.

2) "More Reps would fix campaign finance issues."

"We end up having many members of Congress running for reelection with no challengers whatsoever."

Thats because incumbents get re-elected to the House about 90% of the time in any given election
http://www.opensecrets.org...

"More representatives in Congress will move representation away from outside funding interests and towards the constituency who votes"

Theres a ton of other reasons why incumbents get re-elected over challengers that dont involve money though....
- Incumbents can run on their record about what theyve accomplished,
- They can campaign on how they will set Congress straight,
- They can take advantage of certain government benefits like free mail for advertising,
- Among other things they also have an advantage in that the people from that district know who their representative is whereas they have no idea who his challenger may be.

Incumbents have a lot of advantages to use against challengers that dont revolve around money, and packing the house with more representatives wont change any of these advantages.

3) "Reform the electoral college"

"More Reps would give all states more electors in the Electoral College; therefore, a larger Electoral College would more closely resemble the popular vote."

In the most recent election, Obama won the popular vote 51.1% to 47.2% and the electoral college 332 to 206 (62% to 38%)

If we increased the house of representatives to the point where each state had double the electoral votes, then the final tally would be even more biased away from that of the popular vote.

Romney would have ended up with 412 votes and Obama would have ended up with 664.
THATS STILL 62% TO 38%

Increasing the number of representatives each state has does not lead to any change in the final tally of the electoral college at all, it increases both sides proportionately leading to no change at all.

"If states choose to allocate their electors on a proportional or Congressional district basis, then Presidential elections will then have to develop campaign strategies for not only all states but all populations within states."

But thats not even the case with how the Electoral system works, its a winner take all system. Now your proposal that more representatives would even out the vote is now based entirely on a condition that doesnt even exist. If more people were added to the house then there would be no change at all until another agreement was made to eliminate the winner take all system as well.

"Americans (as well as many on the Debate.org website) have decried a failure in the reliability of the Electoral College as it has often produced different results from the popular vote."

It only produces a bigger gap between the popular vote percentage and the electoral college percentage, and the electoral college has only chosen a minority candidate maybe 3 times in the past over a candidate with a larger public vote in the past 200 years. It does not "often" produce different results from the popular vote, it just exacerbates how much the winning candidate wins by.

"Just like a doctor must treat the cause of the problem and not the symptoms, we must also find out what causes an inability for average people to become Congressmen"

People know who the incumbent is and not the challenger, the incumbent can run on his record for what he has accomplished whereas the challenger cannot, the incumbent can mail ads free of charge thanks to a law that allows them to.

We know full well why incumbents get re-elected so frequently, and the size of the district has nothing to do with it.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

"and why the Electoral College can produce significantly different results from the popular vote."

Because its a winner take all system, something that isnt influenced by how many representatives are added in the house since any increase is done proportionately to each state.

==========================================================================

Summary:

1) Americans hate Congress because of other congressman they dont approve of along with their inefficiency, not because they believe their own congressmen are incompetent. Increasing the number of people in Congress will not lead to higher approval ratings, in fact it is very likely it will only lead to lower approval ratings and more gridlock.

2) In the past election, the dominant party of the house grew less diverse then it was before, losing two minorities and twelve women, and straying closer to its stereotypical image as the party of old white men. Increasing the number of representatives wont guarantee that those extra spots will be given to minorities, and judging from what happened to the GOP this election, it is likely that the gap between the American public and the makeup of Congress will just divide further.

3) The number of representatives added to the House has absolutely no effect on the electoral college and wont change the results to reflect the popular vote since representatives are added to states proportionately, not just to states who were on the losing side.

Debate Round No. 2
OhioGary

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his response. Let’s discuss a few of the points Con raised:

Con made a series of confusing statements in R2.

Con presented an article that stated how women and minorities are now predominately on the political left with white men comprising most of the political right. This House makeup ignores the reality of women and minorities not being on the left and white men not always being on the political right.

I thank Con for providing another piece of evidence to support the need to add more voices to the process and expand the House of Representatives.

Con added by saying how “incumbents get re-elected to the House about 90% of the time in any given election.”

Con’s statements illustrate the problem. As I said before, “[w]hen the American people do not have a choice in Congressional elections because no challenger would (or could) run, our democracy fails.”

Con’s statements do not refute the resolution; in fact, they support the resolution.

Con said:

“when you break down the makeup of both parties, along with what kind of people are actually elected to the house of representatives in the first place, then it becomes apparent that more representatives would not resemble the american[sic] people, it simply wouldnt[sic] change.”

Con continued by saying more Congressional seats:

“would just further exacerbate the gap between the makeup of the House and the american[sic] public where more white men are added to Congress.”

Con does not provide evidence to support that women and minorities wouldn’t win any new seats created in a larger Congress. He just says so.

As we have a black President who won against a woman Senator in the Democratic party primary, I find it difficult to believe Con’s claim that “([a] bunch of old white men)” will automatically pick up any and all new seats added to the House of Representatives.

Con assumes that “bunch[es] of old white men” will all vote in a similar manner. How does Con know that “[a] bunch of old white men” will all automatically vote the same way? How exactly would “[a] bunch of old white men” vote?

In short, Con’s counterclaims are baloney at best and biased at their worst.


Con claimed that the House of Representatives currently provides a cross-section of America. This is simply not true.

Aside from Con’s opinion, there are many glaring realities about the House, which show that the representative body no longer represents the makeup of America:

The House is disproportional by gender. While women comprise approximately 50% of the population in America, but only 18% of the House membership. http://womensissues.about.com...

The House is disproportional by income. An average Congressman makes $174,000 per year while also receiving full health care benefits. The benefits bring Congressional salaries to approximately $285,000 which is five times higher than what an average American makes.

http://dailycaller.com...

This House is disproportional by wealth. In 2009, 44% of the House members were millionaires as compared to only 1% of the American population. http://www.politico.com...

If Con happens to live in a world where 18% of the population are women, everyone makes about $280,000 per year, and just about half of the population are millionaires then he is correct in asserting that the current House of Representatives is a faithful cross-section of Americans.

But, such a world does not exist in the lives of everyday Americans; therefore, Con must realize that his proposed composition of the House is not the makeup of America and that more seats will allow more viewpoints into the conversation.

Con erroneously discussed Senator McConnell’s approval ratings; however, Senator McConnell is a Senator. He is not in the House of Representatives.

Con discussed Senator McConnell’s approval ratings; however, this is a moot point. Senator McConnell is a member of the Senate and not of the House of Representatives. This resolution, and the purpose of the debate, is to discuss the House of Representatives. Arguments about the Senate do not relate to the House, as the House is a separate body. Con’s argument is about the Senate; therefore, Con’s argument is invalid in this discussion.

Con inaccurately stated his understanding of how the Electoral College works.

Con said “But thats[sic] not even the case with how the Electoral system works, its a winner take all system.”

Con’s statement is not true. Maine & Nebraska already allocate electors on a proportional basis, not winner-take-all. http://www.archives.gov...

Con claims that adding members to the House will create conflict.

Con said “[a]dding more people into Congress would just further exacerbate dissatisfaction with Congress and instead push Congress's approval ratings even lower, not higher.”

But, in DDO, we know first-hand that Con’s claim is simply not true.

Adding more Representatives in the process has the same effect that adding more voters does in a DDO debate; it allows for more opinions and also stops a single voter from unduly influencing the outcome.

Not only did Con fail to rebut my argument, but he posed another argument that is easily negated by the first-hand experiences of both Con, myself, and of those who will be voting on this debate.

Just as DDO makes requests for voters to counter a vote bomb by asking more members to vote on a debate, more Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues. We ask for this in DDO and we should expect it from our government.

Summary

In conclusion, I would like to thank my worthy adversary for his display of superior debating skills.

One such skill Con applied in the last round was a tactic called spreading, also known as the Gish Gallop, where Con tried to list as many counter-arguments as possible in an attempt to distract from the discussion at hand.

But, the topic of identifying the problems within Congress and finding the ideal solution is too important to allow Con’s baffling and incorrect statements from R2 into this discussion.

More Representatives would bring more voices to the legislative process. Con has not provided evidence to dispute this.

Con made many inaccurate statements last round. Con talked about campaigning for Senate when this debate discusses the House of Representatives, a different legislative body. Con said that all states must allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis when, in fact, two states currently do not allocate electors on a winner-take-all basis.

Con concluded by stating that more Representatives would create more conflict. But, as I mentioned before, just as DDO makes requests for voters to counter a vote bomb by asking more members to vote on a debate, more Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues. We ask for this in DDO and we should expect this from our government.

I affirm all of my prior arguments, Con’s argument that our current Congress is not representative of America, and Con’s argument that sitting Congressmen overwhelming win re election despite low approval ratings.

I’m looking forward to my opponent abandoning the Gish Gallop and bringing a researched and reasoned response in his rebuttal.

imabench

Con

1) Diversity

"Con presented an article that stated how women and minorities are now predominately on the political left with white men comprising most of the political right. This House makeup ignores the reality of women and minorities not being on the left and white men not always being on the political right."

You kind of missed the point on that one... The dominant party in the House of Representatives is the Republican party, the one which represents the American population the least. This means that if we did add more seats to the House of Representatives, most of those would be won by the Republican party, the party that has the greatest gap between the makeup of the American Public and their Congressional representatives. This means that more seats wont lead to a more diverse Congress since those seats would go to the Republican party, who has the worst track record when it comes to diversity out of the two major parties.

"Con does not provide evidence to support that women and minorities wouldn’t win any new seats created in a larger Congress. He just says so"

I provided a source showing how the Republican party was the dominant party in the House and from last election actually lost 2 minorities and a dozen women from their ranks.... Heres the link again since apparently Con missed it.
http://www.cnn.com...

The evidence shows that the biggest party in the House is growing less diverse, meaning that more seats wont automatically go to minorities like he claims and gives no sources implying this is true.

"As we have a black President who won against a woman Senator in the Democratic party primary, I find it difficult to believe Con’s claim that “([a] bunch of old white men)” will automatically pick up any and all new seats added to the House of Representatives."

See source ive had to provide twice now.... The Republican party is growing less diverse yet they have held the House for 10 elections in a row. Ive given evidence showing how more seats would lead to an even bigger gap in diversity, con has yet to provide a single source supporting his claims that the opposite is true.

"Con claimed that the House of Representatives currently provides a cross-section of America. This is simply not true"

I never once claimed that the House provides a cross section of America. Dont put words in my mouth Pro.

"Con’s argument is about the Senate; therefore, Con’s argument is invalid in this discussion"

You were the one who brought up the approval rating of CONGRESS. The Senate is part of the Congress last I checked.

The point with McConnell was to show that Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole, but that on an individual level most congressmen have approval ratings well above that of Congress. Americans disapprove of Congress because of its overall inefficiency and because they dont like some of the other people who have been elected to Congress, but evidence shows that people are more then happy with the actual congressmen who they elected and who represent them.

This indicates that con's claim that adding more representatives will boost approval ratings is contrary to what would happen, and hes trying to dance around this point through semantics.

2) Reform Campaign Finance

Pro actually dropped every argument in this one and didnt respond to a single thing I said about how Incumbents have numerous non-funding related advantages over challengers.

3) Reform the electoral college

"Maine & Nebraska already allocate electors on a proportional basis, not winner-take-all."

2 states use a proportional basis, the other 48 are still winner take all.

Con is again resorting to semantics to try to dance around the point that increasing the number of people in the House of Representatives will not change the final results of the electoral college to more accurately reflect the popular vote. The electoral college by definition is literally defined as a winner-take-all system, so the argument stands
http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
http://www.archives.gov...

"Adding more Representatives in the process has the same effect that adding more voters does in a DDO debate; it allows for more opinions and also stops a single voter from unduly influencing the outcome."

People on DDO dont operate like members of the House of Representatives.... People in the House have to stay loyal to their party, vote along party lines, hell the only way they get elected is if they convince voters that they will be faithful to their own party. The House isnt a free-for-all system where anyone can vote however they want, people stay within party lines and party platforms, and the amount of gridlock we have in the House highly suggests that more members added to both sides would just continue such gridlock.

http://outpost2012.net...
http://www.usnews.com...

Adding more members to a dysfunctional system doesnt fix the problem, it just makes it worse. Also the House doesnt operate like DDO does, and to assume that it does is simply ridiculous to claim.

"More Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues"

More voting doesnt equal less gridlock though, there are only two ways you can vote on a bill in the House, yes or no, and party politics is the driving force behind how someone votes. If you add more people to both sides then half of those new people will being saying yes, the other half will say no, and then you'll be right back to square one.

"More Representatives would bring more voices to the legislative process. Con has not provided evidence to dispute this."

Ive shown how gridlocked Congress is, has been, and will continue to be in the near future, and how adding more people wont change anything.

"Con talked about campaigning for Senate when this debate discusses the House of Representatives, a different legislative body"

You were the one who brought up the approval ratings of Congress, the Senate is part of Congress and Senators serve the exact same role as Representatives, just on a larger scale. All you did was try to chicken out of the argument by using semantical arguments rather then give a half decent response.

==========================================================================

List of dropped arguments:

1 - Pro completely ignored the fact that the dominant and controlling party in the House grew less diverse from last election
2 - Pro tries to use semantics to avoid the fact that more representatives wont give Congress better approval ratings since Americans like their own representatives and Senators but dont approve of others in Congress.
3 - Pro drops that the reason incumbents win re-election so much is because of non-money based advantages they have available to them
4 - Pro tries to use semantics to dance around the fact that more representatives would have no impact on the outcome of the electoral college since electoral votes are added proportionately to all states, meaning there would be no change in percentage overall.
5 - Pro flat puts words in my mouth that I clearly didnt say and then has the nerve to accuse me of overwhelming him with arguments that he ended up responding to with semantics anyways.
6 - Pro drops the fact that adding more members to the house wont change the electoral count at all unless all states resort to using proportional representation, which is something only done in 2 states.

I look forward to the Pro actually give straightforward responses to my arguments, not put words in my mouth, try to not use semantics as his entire arguments, actually provide sources for his own unsubstantiated points, and actually read the sources Ive already given that support my arguments....
Debate Round No. 3
OhioGary

Pro

Oh, Con, there you go again.


Con listed many inaccuracies during this debate, and I’ll scratch the surface by listing a few of more egregious ones here.


In R2, Con said that “the Republican party has held control of the house[sic] for the last 10 elections in a row. The Democrats had a majority in the House from 2006-2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com... The Republicans have not held a majority in the House for the last 10 elections. Con’s statement is not true.


In R2, Con said that states cannot award electors on any other basis except a winner-take-all basis. But, I provided evidence to show that both Kansas & Maine currently award their electors on a proportional basis. Con’s statement is not true.


In R2, Con described outcomes of a Senate candidate when the resolution of this debate was “we need more Representatives in the House of Representatives.” Con’s statements about Senate approvals would not have any bearing on the House of Representatives as they are a separate house of legislature. Con’s statement is not true.


In the last round, Con said that “Senators serve the exact same role as Representatives, just on a larger scale.” Con’s statement is not true. Senators have exclusive right to ratify treaties, confirm Cabinet nominees & Supreme Court Justices, and to try (not initiate) Impeachment proceedings. I’m sorry Con, but the House does not have these powers! http://system.uslegal.com... In addition, the House has sole authority to initiate (not try) Impeachment proceedings & to start all revenue bills. Con, surely you know that the Senate does not have these powers? http://www.britannica.com...

I believe that Con’s incorrect statement about the GOP winning the last 10 Congressional elections, Con’s incorrect assumption about the awarding of Electors in the Electoral College, Con’s incorrect statements about the function of the Senate & the House of Representatives being equal, and the many other misstatements made in this debate by Con have created a foundation upon which Con has based a woefully inaccurate analysis of this debate topic.


Con twice said that individuals like their own Congressman, but do not like everyone else’s. Con does not take into consideration the effects of gerrymandering which would create districts that are drawn to favor an incumbent by cherry picking the voting pool. Con moved away from the argument that smaller Congressional districts would reduce the effect of gerrymandering and, as I have pointed out in R2, bring the Congressman to become more accountable to their own respective constituencies.


Con continued to make the centerpiece of his argument that more Representatives would not bring diverse viewpoints by specifically claiming that new Representatives would “a bunch of old white men.” How does Con know that all new members would automatically both be “a bunch of old white men” and that “a bunch of old white men”, or any group of new Representatives, would all vote the same way?


Con continued to argue that more Representatives would automatically vote in line with their party affiliation and only more gridlock would ensue.


But those who have first-hand experience in a debate on DDO know that more voters will settle gridlock, and that more voters do not always vote in lock-step with each other.


Voters are not bound to vote in a particular manner on a DDO debate; in fact, many times when individuals ask for voters to counter a perceived vote-bomb they find out that the new voter agrees with the prior voter and the point spread widens. Sometimes, a new voter does not agree with the prior voter and the vote is countered.


Asking for more voters does not guarantee a vote for the requester anymore than it guarantees a vote for the opponent; more voters just bring more opinions into the debate. Just as more voters do not automatically bring in “a bunch of old white men” in DDO, more Representatives would not automatically bring in “a bunch of old white men” into the House of Representatives. More voters do not create more gridlock in DDO; in actuality, more voters actually settle gridlock because more people came to a conclusion on a debate. We should have more opinions in the House of Representatives and more Representatives will accomplish what we already set out to do in DDO.


Why would Con be against having more viewpoints in Congress, when we often ask for more viewpoints on a DDO debate? If we believe that a DDO debate is important enough to warrant more viewpoints, then why would we not want more viewpoints on debates regarding laws that affect everyone in the US?


Summary


Despite the inaccurate statements, accusations, Gish Gallops, and other debate monkeyshines lobbed by Con, the resolution remains simple, clear and undisputed: we need more Representatives in the House of Representatives.


More Representatives would add more voices to the process. More Representatives would bring more diverse viewpoints, and more diversity, to a Congress that is not currently representative of Americans in terms of gender, income, & wealth.


More Representatives would create smaller districts that are more accountable to their constituencies instead of towards outside fundraising interests.


And, more Representatives would increase the size of the Electoral College to stop the 9% disparity between the popular vote and Electoral College as referenced by Con in his R2 argument.


I will end my arguments by asking the DDO voters to think of their own first-hand experiences on DDO and with voting outcomes.


More voters can, and will, shape the outcome of the debate.


More voters can, and will, vote their conscience and do not vote in lock step with each other.


More voters can, and will, bring a diversity of viewpoints which are not all the same even if Con says that more voters will be “a bunch of old white men.”


And, more voters can, and will, create a consensus that is more broadly accepted by the population as a whole just as we’ve seen on DDO.


President Lincoln said “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...


More Representatives must be added to the House of Representatives to keep pace with our growing population. It is the only way that we fulfill Lincoln’s vision for our government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and to ensure that our laws are decided upon by a group of Representative Americans. To accomplish these ends, we need more Representatives in the House of Representatives.

imabench

Con

"The Republicans have not held a majority in the House for the last 10 elections. Con’s statement is not true."

That is the last time I ever trust CNN.....

"Con said that states cannot award electors on any other basis except a winner-take-all basis. But, I provided evidence to show that both Kansas & Maine currently award their electors on a proportional basis. Con’s statement is not true."

I didnt say that states CANT award electors on a proportional basis, I said that states DONT award electors on a proportional basis.... This means that more representatives in the House wont change anything since an overwhelming number of states award electors by a winner take all system, meaning the final results wont change.

"Con’s statements about Senate approvals would not have any bearing on the House of Representatives as they are a separate house of legislature. "

For what must be the fifteenth time, Pro is once again using semantics to cower his way out of the argument. The people like their own Congressmen, but disapprove of Congress overall because of its overall and because they also disapprove of who other people elect to Congress. The argument that adding more representatives to the House wont improve Congress's ratings now remains unchallenged.

"In the last round, Con said that “Senators serve the exact same role as Representatives, just on a larger scale.” Con’s statement is not true. "

Meant to say almost, my bad. Its a shame though that the Pro would rather focus on semantics then focus on the actual debate at this point....

"I believe that Con’s incorrect statement about the.... have created a foundation upon which Con has based a woefully inaccurate analysis of this debate topic."

Im sorry, how many arguments have you dropped so far Pro? 6? Try to keep up before claiming that Im the one who has no idea what hes even arguing.

"Con does not take into consideration the effects of gerrymandering which would create districts that are drawn to favor an incumbent by cherry picking the voting pool."

Gerrymandering occurs once every ten years because thats when states reorganize district lines, House elections though happen every two years, meaning that Gerrymandering have an effect on who gets elected one out of every five elections.

"Con moved away from the argument that smaller Congressional districts would reduce the effect of gerrymandering"

Because gerrymandering is something you introduced in your last round.... Its kind of hard for me to respond to your 'arguments' (I use that term loosely here) when you havent made them yet.... Also Gerrymandering is something controlled by state legislators, not Congress.

"How does Con know that all new members would automatically both be “a bunch of old white men” and that “a bunch of old white men”, or any group of new Representatives, would all vote the same way?"

Pro for the last time, the dominant party in the House has grown rapidly less diverse from the past election to this one, its easy to conclude that adding more spots for the dominant party that grows less diverse over time, and not more, will most likely have those seats filled with typical Republican congressmen, who typically vote Republican.

Also, anybody who isnt an idiot knows that Republicans and Democrats always vote according to party lines

http://www.opencongress.org...
http://www.opencongress.org...
http://www.opencongress.org...

Congress has long been faction vs faction when it comes down to voting on bills, its not a free and open society where people routinely express diverse views contrary to those from their party, its always just one side slinging sh*t towards the other side while that side returns fire. Hence why Congress has such low approval ratings, because "bipartisian" is a word rarely associated with Congress these days.

"But those who have first-hand experience in a debate on DDO know that more voters will settle gridlock, and that more voters do not always vote in lock-step with each other."

Then why is it that evidence shows the exact opposite is true?
http://www.opencongress.org...
http://www.opencongress.org...

Congress is in gridlock, and adding more people to both sides of the equation isnt going to solve anything.

"We should have more opinions in the House of Representatives and more Representatives will accomplish what we already set out to do in DDO."

But evidence, (That thing we give to prove our arguments instead of our own opinions like what pro has been doing this whole time) suggests that this isnt the case and wont be the case.

"Why would Con be against having more viewpoints in Congress, when we often ask for more viewpoints on a DDO debate?"

Im not saying there shouldnt be more viewpoints in Congress a**hole, Im saying that adding more people to Congress wont change anything because Republicans dont have differing views from other Republicans and Democrats dont have differing views from other Democrats. Thats politics 1-0-no-sh*t-sherlock-1.

==========================================================================

List of dropped/ignored/unsubstantiated arguments:

- 1 - Pro continues to ignore how the dominant party in Congress grew drastically less diverse from the previous election
- 2 - Pro completely drops the fact that incumbents get re-elected for numerous other reasons other then money and fundraising.
- 3 - Pro completely drops that a vast majority of the electoral college is a winner take all system, meaning that adding more members to the House wont make the E.C. reflect the popular vote more
- 4 - Pro drops his original argument that adding more representatives would change campaign finance laws
- 5 - Pro continues to ignore how gridlocked and polarized Congress is and will continue to be
- 6 - Pro continues to ignore the fact that Congress does not operate anything like DDO, yet 90% of his arguments are based off of that claim. Congress never votes on whether or not Utilitarianism is preferable like DDO does, Congress only votes on political issues, the one subject where you get close to zero compromise or deviation.
- 7 - Pro fails to provide any evidence suggesting that more seats will lead to more diversity when the exact opposite is being observed
- 8 - Pro fails to provide any evidence that more representatives will end gridlock
- 9 - Pro fails to provide any evidence showing that more representatives would make the electoral college reflect the popular vote better
- 10 - Pro fails to provide any evidence suggesting that more representatives would somehow reduce the effect of gerrymandering, which is something controlled by state legislatures and not the House or any part of Congress for that matter

Summary: Of the three original arguments the Pro used, 1 of them was completely dropped while the other two have been refuted. A large majority of Pro's arguments are based on nothing more then his own warped opinions and not on actual evidence. When he wasnt doing that he was either 1) Putting words in my mouth and responding to claims I never made instead of the actual arguments Ive presented, or 2) Focusing a large majority of his arguments on pointing out irrelevant slip ups I made rather then respond to the main arguments. The fact is that increasing the number of people in the House doesnt produce an observable improvement in how Congress operates.

Arguments: Vote either way

Conduct: Pro put a ton of false words in my mouth but I havent exactly been nice either, so vote either way

Grammar: I personally didnt have a problem reading Pro's arguments so again, vote either way

Sources: I am going to ask for this one since a large portion of Pro's arguments are based on his own opinions and not much else.... The sources he did provide were mostly in response to claims I never actually made (See round 3), or on largely irrelevant points (what the Senate actually does), whereas my sources were actually related to the resolution....

Thanks for reading :D
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
Yes, yes. This is all true.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
(Everybody from Ohio likes Ginger Ale, thats just common knowledge)
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
Hey! I read your debate response, Imabench. Don't call me an A**hole; we're debating here!

Frown and ten demerits to Imabench for calling me an A**hole (I'm assuming that the astericks must stand for "alehole" and, you know what, I'm ok with being called an "alehole." How did you know that I like Ginger Ale?)
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Yeah sorry about that... I drank a root beer at 1AM and ended up staying up all night....

NOT my best idea -___-
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
You've already posted your response? I posted mine at 11 at night. Go to sleep!!!!!
Anyways, I'll mull this over and will have mine up probably later tonight or tomorrow.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
Take as much time as you need :)
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
Still cooking up a response. It's on its way.
Posted by OhioGary 3 years ago
OhioGary
You intimidate me. But, I don't want to get kicked out of the Senate mafia so I'll honor the request!
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
If you make it four rounds Ill accept
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by x2MuzioPlayer 3 years ago
x2MuzioPlayer
OhioGaryimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm inclined to agree adding more seats won't necessarily result in a benefit to diversity. I fail to see the link and it doesn't seem to be articulated very well by Pro. Pro concedes the campaign financing issue. The third argument with the electoral college was also fairly one-sided. Sheer numbers don't offset the entrenched opinions in congress. Like Con said, 90% of incumbents get reelected. Also, the resolution is about adding representative seats, not changing the electoral college, so even if I buy states can opt to split the points, it's irrelevant to the topic. Since the three main arguments were refuted, the argument's to Con. I don't particularly care for conduct votes unless it's atrocious; same with S&G. While Pro did point out one flaw in Con's source, I'm inclined to err tied because of the number of sources used (27 if I counted correctly).
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
OhioGaryimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a debate with meat on both sides of the issue. While I agree with OhioGary that it would be great if congress had more points of view rather than the stale old republican and democrat perspectives, I don't see how adding more congressmen would change that. As imabench says, candidates vote according to party lines, incumbents almost always win, and the electoral college has a (predominately) winner-take-all system. It seems, Pro's real targets should have been those. My own experiences with politics--and that's involved many people and millions of dollars--is that it has little in common with DDO voting. I worry the reality would be more pork-barrel spending. ** Sources: On second thought, sources are a tie. While Con had more sources, Pro did poke holes in his facts.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
OhioGaryimabenchTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a rather interesting debate. I really did not feel conduct was up to par, so I won't be giving any of those points to either side. The same goes for spelling and grammar. I wasn't convinced to either side, but I give those points to imabench because of OhioGary dropped many of imabench's points. I give sources to OhioGary because of the "Republicans have had the House for the past ten elections", where imabench stated that CNN lead him to that conclusion.