Winner take all states
Debate Rounds (3)
Winner take all is election fraud
Winner-take-all or winner-takes-all is an electoral system in which a single political party or group can elect every office within a given district or jurisdiction. (https://ballotpedia.org..., 2016)
What the con side argues for, is to reform the electoral college.
However, this will throw many of the minuscule states, with not a lot of people, in the dirt. In the electoral college, even small states have some representation in the electoral college.
My opponent has also stated that the electoral college system is election fraud, but he does not define what election fraud is. Also know as Voter fraud, also known as vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud, refers to the specific offenses of fraudulent voting, impersonation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.
Now, there are state laws supporting the electoral college system, and the winner take all, so it is not election fraud.
For all these reasons, vote pro.
It's pretty simple...
This is an argument for democracy where the candidate you voted for gets your vote.
This is an argument over should all votes count or should one vote change the votes of many.
Ending the practice of changing millions of votes, aka "winner take all", ensures the validity of the electoral college and protects democracy.
Actually, I had to define what the Winner take all system is. Since the con side was unable to define what the resolution was, I had to clarify it. Also, the con side contradicts them self, saying "This is not an argument for or against the electoral college, a system that has outlasted its usefulness." Meaning that the con side DOES want to change it.
Another argument that my opponent made was that it should reflect the will of the people. However, What about cases in which there is a 50-50 tie with a +- 1%. Should the person who barely won by 1% win? this is why we have an electoral college system, and the winner take all system. To prevent this from happening.
When there are minimal votes counted "the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U.S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. " (uselectionatlas.org, 2014)
What this basically means is, if there is an overwhelming majority of voters, then the nominee is certain to win the electoral college.
The con side also states, "This is an argument over should all votes count or should one vote change the votes of many." This is not the case, because in the electoral college, it is actually represented by the will of the people. It is a representative republic, therefore his argument is nonunique and flawed.
The con side has not refuted any of my arguments, at all, and expanded on his case. The pro side has rebutted the con's side arguments, and extends all attacks made to him/her. Also, the con side has not substantiated his claims, and seems to contradicts what he is saying. For all these reasons, you should vote pro, and keep the winner-take-all system.
The Pro side provided a link to define "winner take all" but that same web page questions the legality of "winner take all".
It goes on to say, "Because winner-take-all elections allow the single largest politically cohesive group to elect every office in a jurisdiction, they may result in racial minority vote dilution in places where voting is racially polarized. For that reason, they may be illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Such vote dilution is typically remedied by drawing or redrawing district lines for single-winner districts and including at least one district in which the racial minority population will be able to elect a candidate of choice. In some cases, however, vote dilution is remedied by changing the winner-take-all voting method to a proportional or semi-proportional voting method."
It also says, "Winner-take-all systems typically reward strong, larger parties while penalizing weak, smaller parties. Proportional representation guarantees that smaller parties garner representation that is proportionate to their votes received in an election"
Overall, con side has shown a lack of analysis, while just putting and pasting down quotes. The site that I provided actually shows both sides to whether winner-take-all should be removed or not.
Now, there HAVE been motions to take down winner-take-all laws, but none have succeeded.
The con side has rebutted very few of my arguments, while I have rebutted all of their arguments, and has not mentioned any of my arguments in Round 1.
My definition of the winner-take-all and voter fraud stays true, being that the con side has not provided a counter definition. Please take these definitions into consideration.
Winner-take-all is not election fraud, so you should vote con.
Thank you to the pro side for this wonderful debate.
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.