The Instigator
Wholock
Pro (for)
The Contender
Teen_driven_crazy
Con (against)

We should abolish the electoral college

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Wholock has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 96874
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Wholock

Pro

I think we should no longer use the outdated electoral college systems, which has frequently landed us with a president that the majority of the country does not support. There are many things wrong with the electoral college system including faithless electors, its outdatedness, the inequality of citizens votes, and unwanted presidents. For these reasons, which I shall later explain in a greater depth, I suggest that Congress abolish this system and use the popular vote, like the majority of the world.
Teen_driven_crazy

Con

I believe that the electoral college is quite useful to our country, in that it is very rare that the popular vote majority is not the same as the electoral majority. Many people who do not believe we should take the time to count the popular vote are correct, for it is quite possible for the machines that would probably count it may either be rigged or naturally malfunction, leaving again with a president the popular vote did not actually want. Also, if we did change to the popular vote, many regions that may be solidly Republican and highly populate would have a major advantage over the other states. The electoral vote limits that and helps make sure that the voting is truly a democracy.
Debate Round No. 1
Wholock

Pro

First, I would like to point out the their are faithless electors. This means that the opinion of millions of people is ignored for the opinion of one, stubborn elector. This, in itself, should not be allowed, as, since all Americans should be equal, one person"s vote should not count more than any other"s. Unfortunately, this is not illegal, and while there are minor punishments in some states, according to National Archives and Records Administration, "There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states." This that many electors can vote for whoever these choose and there will be no consequences. According to fairvote.org, "There are 29 states (plus the District of Columbia) that require faithfulness issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless electors, including fines and misdemeanors." This means that 21 states do not have punishments for faithless electors, and the ones that do only have small punishments that Electors may think are worth more the the president of the United States. And it is not like this is a small problem. Also according to fairvote.org, "Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 157 faithless electors." That is a lot of votes which have been made null and void. These selfish 157 electors nullified the votes of millions of American citizens, and many more can do so in the future. According to the 26th amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." This means it is illegal to deny an American citizen, over the age of 18, the right to vote; however, faithless electors are denying people's right to vote and; therefore, are breaking the 26th amendment. This means that not matter if the electoral college is abolished or not, being a faithless voter has to become illegal and have severe consequences.
Second, the electoral college system is outdated. According to the Federalist Papers, "It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." This means that one of the reasons the electoral college was created was so that the smarter people, or the rich, powerful, land-owning, white males, could make all the decisions while the rest of the country thought they were living in a democracy. We say we live in a democracy, and we need to stand by what we say. We need to abolish this system that gave political figures more powerful.
Third, we can easily get presidents that the majority of Americans do not want. In fact, of the 57 presidential elections which have taken place, 5 have been won by a candidate who did not win the majority of the votes. Also, according to Huffington Post, "According to a study done by Jesse Ruderman, ""A presidential candidate could be elected with as a little as 21.8% of the popular vote by getting just over 50% of the votes in DC and each of 39 small states. This is true even when everyone votes and there are only two candidates. In other words, a candidate could lose with 78.2% of the popular vote by getting just under 50% in small states and 100% in large states."" This means that a candidate could beat out another candidate who got the overwhelming majority; in fact, the location of a candidate's supporters matters much more than the quantity; which brings me to my final point.
Lastly, not every vote is equal. There are two parts to this: the amount of votes the state which the voter live in gets and whether or not the voter lives in a swing states. First, the amount of votes of the state a voter is in makes a big impact. Unless the election is extremely close, no one cares about who Alaska voted for. What they do care is who Florida, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and all the other states with a large amount of electoral college vote for. Candidates are less likely to campaign in states with low electoral votes and their votes often don"t play as large of a role in an election than someone who lives in Florida. According to Deseret News, the only election where a state like Alaska would have mattered was the election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, which is probably because there were less electoral votes back then (138). Even the second closest election, which also only had a total of 138 electoral votes, would"ve needed more than Alaska to change the outcome. That means if Florida one side by one vote, and Alaska won the other side without any vote"s for Florida"s side, Florida"s side would be winning by 26 electoral votes. Second, whether or not the state a voter lives in is a swing state also makes a huge impact. For example, unless the citizens of Massachusetts change or the values of the democratic party change drastically, Massachusetts is always going to vote for the democratic candidate. This means neither a republic nor a democratic voter will have a say in the outcome of their states" election is already pre-determined. On the other hand, in a swing state like New Hampshire, every vote counts, as the most recent democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, won New Hampshire by about 1,500 votes. That is an extremely small different, and while the number of electoral college votes may seem small, in a swing state like Florida, with 29 electoral votes, it makes a huge impact.
We live in a new era where we realize that all people are equal, and in this new era, we need to give the right to vote to the people, not to an outdated system created to benefit the rich.
Teen_driven_crazy

Con

However, in the swing states, the ones with the most electoral votes, voters know that it is their region that can change the course of the election. Therefore they are more likely to put more thought into voting, so the swing states end up being the ones where the voters are the most educated and will vote more wisely. The electoral college also restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the malapportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. This may seem paradoxical, given that electoral votes are weighted in favor of less populous states. Wyoming, the least populous state, contains only about one-sixth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, but its three electors (of whom two are awarded only because Wyoming has two senators like every other state) give it slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of total electoral votes. But winner-take-all makes a slight increase in the popular vote have a much bigger electoral-vote payoff in a large state than in a small one. The popular vote was very close in Florida; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small states does. And since presidents and senators are often presidential candidates, large states are likely to get additional consideration in appropriations and appointments from presidents and senators before as well as during campaigns, offsetting to some extent the effects of the unequal Senate on the political influence of less populous states.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheBenC 3 weeks ago
TheBenC
The older you get the more you understand how useful the electoral college is. States have rights. Cities should not be able to control 100% of politics for the entire country. Without the electoral college we would have a disaster. NY and California would basically be able to force Iowa and Kansas to do things that harm the country and the economy.

Also, imagine a scenario where Kim Kardashian is greatly popular and can get the majority of the popular vote. That nightmare would be avoided thanks to the electoral college.
Posted by ZenekPr0 4 weeks ago
ZenekPr0
You should indeed. When it comes to my notice how your election system looks like I was like "Man, Seriously? That's insane"

Basically in current system votes of some people don't count the same. It would be acceptable if say votes of people with Phd in science were counted as more important. However the only criteria is where you happen to live.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.