The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Your vote for presidential candidates do not count.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 886 times Debate No: 40961
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I would like to argue that the people's vote is worthless; it is merely an illusion of power that the U.S. government has given to the public. Those in the position of power have always pre-picked presidents, and the concept of a popular vote, or a "one vote one count" system, is just an elaborate show. So far, there has been only four U.S. presidents who lost by popular vote but still won elections. The most recent example would be George W. Bush. In spite of this small number, I would still argue that elections have been rigged since the very beginning, and were designed to be that way. The Electoral College is the mechanism which best supports my argument, it was written into law in the constitution largely because the founding fathers were worried about the American public's ability to choose wisely. And that should really tell you something. The ruling powers have always been afraid of giving the public the power to choose, so instead they gave us the illusion of having that power. Also, you would be very naive to believe that money and power has no influence on the way elections turn out. Presidents are bought and sold like items on a shelf, the amount of lobbying involved in politics period should tell you something. So, does anyone disagree with my argument that the people's vote doesn't count?


I would first like to thank my opponent for the excellent topic.

The vote is a powerful tool used in any representative government. It can be used for the benefit or harm of society depending on who is voted for and who is voting.

My opponent makes the claim that the electoral college nullifies or makes the popular vote useless. This is incorrect. The electoral college is an assembly of electors who represent their parties nominees and are sent based on who wins a states popular vote to vote for president. Essentially whoever wins the popular vote in a state receives those electoral votes. Note that there a few states where electoral votes can be divided depending on percentage as opposed to winner taking all. Because the members of the electoral college are sent depending on the popular vote, our vote does matter in selecting the next president. It may not be the best system but it is false to say that our vote literally doesn't count. [1]

Pro also states that " Those in the position of power have always pre-picked presidents"

This assertion shows a lack of knowledge of the presidential process. A political party will nominate a candidate to run for the presidency. It may be a party with a strong foothold in congress or a party member who previously held the presidency. Also the incumbent may not even be the parties nominee. President Pierce lost the democratic nomination as the incumbent. Getting back to the point, once a party has delegates vote for their candidate they run for the actual presidency. Once in the actual campaign the candidates may receive funds from certain special interests but this doesn't mean they are being picked by higher powers. It just means they are accepting a bribe more or less to act a certain way and pass legislation in office. The same thing is done on every level of government but in no way is the president being chosen by some higher power other than the people (or at least pro gives no evidence to prove otherwise).

Pro goes on to say in regards to the electoral vote "it was written into law in the constitution largely because the founding fathers were worried about the American public's ability to choose wisely"

Well yes. Its essentially a safety net to keep uneducated voters from electing a leader who would act malevolent in office or be tyrannical. The safety net that is the electoral college has been heavily diluted today because as of now a majority of states actually punish faithless electors (electors who don't vote for the candidate they were supposed to based on popular vote and their placement as an elector for that candidate). This doesn't necessarily mean our vote doesn't count. Just that if we get to the point where we vote for someone who is just honestly terrible, the electors can come together and stop that from happening. Its just highly unlikely to happen.

I hold that our vote does count based on this analysis. I await Pros response.



Debate Round No. 1


First allow me to likewise thank my opponent for entering this debate.
Concerning the electoral college, I would like to point out that there are 27 states which supposedly require electors to stay true to the popular vote. However, I use the term "supposedly" because even though these 27 states claim that electors are bound by state law or by pledge to vote honestly, there is still no constitutional or federal law that actually requires electors to vote the way they pledge to. For that reason, there has never been any real punishment for what they call faithless voters, regardless of the state law. So in reality, what it comes down to is how much do you trust your vote in the hands of a stranger who can very easily get away with changing your vote?
As for the presidential process itself, it leaves more than enough of room for corruption and it is highly likely that presidents are chosen by higher powers. My opponent seems to be very naive when speaking about this process. But voting, Just like everything else in government, along with the entire presidential process, has a strict hierarchical platform. And in this hierarchical platform, we the people are the least effective in choosing our president. First we have the primaries, where delegates and even superdelegates vote in presidential nominees. Again, we the people have little to no say so as to who chooses these delegates to choose our candidates, or as to what candidates they choose. So right from the start we have the ability for the puppet master (higher power) to step in and choose his presidential puppet.
So by the time the general elections come around, a president can already be paid for and sold into office, and we the people would never know it. My opponent seems to underestimate the power of special interest groups and the power of the almighty dollar within politics. Money is what rules over all government affairs, it's what influences the media and controls what people see. Any higher power who wants a certain candidate to win, can easily make sure that the candidate of his choosing takes office. Again, what the whole thing comes down to is how much do you trust these people to do the right thing?



I thank my opponent for his response.

Pro points out that the state laws that punish faithless electors have never been enacted. He fails to point out that this is simply because they have not had the opportunity to implement laws since their conception. He then argues that because there is no federal law regarding faithless electors that these electors wont be punished. In tenth grade NSL we learned that we have a system of Federalism in the United States in which there is a national, state, and local government. State governments can make and enforce laws the same way that the federal government does so long as the two do not conflict. The laws in these states that punish faithless electors do not conflict with federal law and therefore can be enforced should someone break the law.

My opponent asks," do you trust your vote in the hands of a stranger who can very easily get away with changing your vote?"

Ironically the source that he used points out an interesting fact about these electors. The source states that "Electors are often chosen to recognize service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate." [1] In short these electors have a high status and power within their party. I cant see any incentive to vote against their own party and destroy the position they have established for themselves. It would be counter productive and simply doesn't make sense.

My opponent makes multiple claims that it is "highly likely" presidents are chosen by higher powers and gives no empirical evidence and no argument to prove this is true. After calling me "naive" the whole subject of higher powers gets dropped.

Pro then goes on to talk about the delegates and and although it technically isn't relevant to the topic I feel the need to respond. Delegates are essentially an electoral college for selecting the parties candidate for president. State party members vote for a primary candidate and depending on how they do a certain number of state supporters for that person go as delegates to the RNC.

Pro has provided little evidence to back his claims that presidents are put into place by higher powers or that the electoral process doesn't count the vote of the people at all.



Debate Round No. 2


Revolutionary forfeited this round.


Pro has failed to respond. All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3


Revolutionary forfeited this round.


Pro has failed to fulfill the BOP. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by miketheman1200 3 years ago
This should be a good debate. Welcome to the site! :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, dropped arguments.