The Instigator
twilke
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
johannes
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

he electoral college be abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,216 times Debate No: 30575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

twilke

Pro

4 times in american history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college. What? Isn't america about what the people want? America is a democracy that is supposed to do what the people want. Does every vote really count? If you a republican in a democratic state or the other way around, you vote is all but worthless. The electoral college is outdated and made for a different time. The reason the founding fathers made it was so the man at the tavern was not deciding the election, they wanted a filter. But now, the filter takes away people's say in the election. Do we really want a president that the people don't want? America is about doing what the people want, not what the bigger states that have more republicans or democrats want. So again, Does every vote really count?
johannes

Con

The electoral college should not be abolished. It is a perfectly good system that has led to peaceful transfers from president to president for 200 years. Why risk that by changing to a popular vote? In 2000, all the votes in Florida needed to be recounted, and that took a long time. What if we had to have a national recount? We could be without a president for months! What if a country were to attack us during those months. We would be in complete disarray, and get destroyed by that country! In the electoral college, you don't have to do a complete recount if you mess up counting, because whoever gets the majority of votes wins that state, you don't need to be exact. Also, a purely popular vote would cause the small states to lower their voting age to 16 or 17 so presidents campaign there. Do we really want teenagers deciding the future of our country? Also, the electoral college forces presidents to campaign in all the swing states, and doesn't allow you to win the presidency by dominating one region of our country. If there was a popular vote, presidents would only campaign in the big cities: New York City, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Getting rid of the electoral college for a popular vote is like getting rid of a best of 7 World Series and replacing it with whoever scores the most runs over the 7 games. Did the Marlins not win the world series in '02 because they scored less runs? Of course not. Also, remember that the last country that successfully used a direct democracy was Ancient Greece. Why? Because it doesn't work. Thank you. Source: saveourstates.org, heritagefoundation.org
Debate Round No. 1
twilke

Pro

First, I would like to rebut some of my opponents arguments. First, the electoral college is not fine system. America is about what the people want. Why do we want a handful of states deciding our country, instead of everybody. My opponent has claimed that only big cities will matter more in the popular vote because they will campaign there. But the difference is that in the electoral college, people in non-swing states don't matter. In a popular vote, people not in the big cities vote's still count because everybody's votes count, so they must campaign everywhere. In the electoral college, a republican president does not have to go to republican states that they know they will win. This makes people not want to vote for a president because they don't know either candidate since hey never went to their state. How would doing a popular vote have anything to do with states lowering their voting ages? There is no connection. Also, how is a popular vote like saying whoever scores more runs in the world series wins? In the electoral college, there can be a tie. Twice in americas history, there has been an electoral college tie. We had to have the house of representatives decide. That means that is the house is republican or democratic, they may decide he election in their favor. Also, my opponent might say that the electoral college is too hard to pass. Well, 56% of america wants a national popular vote plan. If more of america wants something, then we ail slavery. Slavery, and women voting laws were both passed against odds because the people wanted it. If america is a country about the people, we should be able to pass this. Finally, if america is a country about what the people want, we should get to directly chose our president, instead of a handful of sing states.
johannes

Con

I would like to rebut my opponents' rebuttal. He said that America is about what the people want, and that a popular vote would be what the people want. But that is based on a false assumption that we are a direct democracy, which we are not. We are a republic, so we don't do direct popular votes. Also, he said that since everybody's vote counts, presidents must campaign everywhere. But why would they campaign everywhere when they could just campaign in the big cities of one region and win the election by dominating that region? My opponent also stated that their is no connection that would make small states lower their voting age. But their is. Since presidents are only going to campaign in the cities with lots of people that can vote for them, the small states would lower their voting age so that they have more eligible voters so presidents might come to their cities. My opponent also made a point about slavery. However, abolishing slavery required us to have a CIVIL WAR, that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Do you want to have another civil war over abolishing something that works? I don't think that's what the people want, which, according to you, means everything. Also, my opponent stated that, "if america is a country about what the people want, we should get to directly choose our president, instead of a handful of SING states. He made quite the typo right there. What are singing states? Are they going to be on American Idol? But anyways, if we should get to directly choose our president, then we would have to change our entire democracy to a direct democracy, which hasn't worked since Ancient Greece, and risk the success our country has had for 247 years with a republic. Lastly, you said that the electoral college can tie, and that if the House/Senate is favored towards a party, then they will give it to that candidate. But remember, WE elect the people of the House and Senate. If they're biased, that's our mistake in voting for them. Also, the electoral college ties were in 1800 and 1824! That was a really long time ago, when our country was much less populated. Their were 24 states! 24 ! That's less than half the amount of states that we have now! Of course it was easier to get ties. But now. the chance of a tie has lowered greatly with 50 states and hundreds of millions of people. Thank you. Sources: saveourstates.org, heritagefoundation.org
Debate Round No. 2
twilke

Pro

I would like to start out by saying i meant swing states, and i wrote swing states all but 1 time. Also, my opponent claimed it was a false assumption to say that america is about what the people want. WHAT?! The whole reason america was crated was so the people could get what they want. If most of america wants something, that is safe for our health, we will get it. We got women to vote. Now lets get everybody's vote to count the same, instead of swing states votes counting for everything. I admit I made 1 typo so my opponent used that to get around not refuding my point that america is about what the people want, not about what the swing states want. NYC's population in approximately 8 million people. Los angel's population is about 3,500,000 people. Philadelphia's population is about 1,500,000 people. Americas population is 315,556,000 people. I know not everyone can vote, but no website has an eligible voter count, so saying that everyone can vote. A president would have no choice but to campeighn in every state, because clearly, those state's populations are not enough to get a decisive vote. Meanwhile, in the electoral college, a president only has to campeighn in swing states to win the election. So why do we want only a few state's deciding our country. Also, how is the popular vote like replacing a best of 7 world series with whoever gets more runs. The world series has nothing to do with what THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA want. I would also like to rebut my opponent's point about changing to a full direct democracy. According to an article on slate.com, another option is, instead of amending the constitution, have every state approve the popular vote plan. So, we would not have to change to a complete direct democracy at all. Also, I would like to see a direct source on ancient greece being the last country to use a popular vote. I know they have sources, but I want direct source on that. My sources are, Forbes.com, and procon.org. I would to close by repeating a few of my opening statements. Like, 4 times in history, the winner of the popular vote has not won the election, so we had a president that america's people didn't want. So, a country that was built on the theory that we do what the people want, had a leader that the people did not ant. Also, if you are a republican in a democratic state, or a democrat in a republican state, you have NO say in the election. So again, a country also built on the grounds that everyone has an equal say, people have no say in our election. My closing... Does every vote really count?
johannes

Con

I would like to start off my final statement by answering my opponent's need to see a direct source. The source is answers.yahoo.com, thank you very much, which is a perfectly reliable source. I would like to rebut my opponent's point that a president would have no choice but campaign in every state. The candidates would still only campaign in swing states. It's not as if a popular vote suddenly stops the states from being favored towards a certain party. They are in fact favored towards a party even more! With the electoral college, the candidate that wins California gets 55 electoral college votes. But with the POPULAR vote, the candidate that wins California gets around 25 million million votes, and the other candidate gets around 11 million. What's more fair, a 55 vote difference, or a 14 million vote difference? The candidates wouldn't campaign in the states that are favored towards a party, because they aren't going to win over millions of votes, not even close. And the popular vote would stop presidents from campaigning in small swing states, because it's only 500,000 to 1 million votes, it's nothing compared to 315,556,000 votes, right? Also, every state would not agree to the popular vote plan, not if it's 56% to 44% in favor of it. I would like to close by saying, again, that in 2000 and 2012, we needed to recount Florida, and that took a long time. Luckily, however, we knew that Obama had already taken the presidency, and that Florida didn't matter. (Thanks to the electoral college.) Had we been using a popular vote, we wouldn't have known whether or not Obama was president yet, and we would've been slaughtered by a country that could attack us, while waiting for every vote to be counted about who the president is. It wouldn't have taken so long for just Florida, but if we had had to do a national recount, then that could take months. The chances of us being destroyed in that time period would be much greater. Would we really want to take that risk, only to get rid of a system that already works? I don't think so. The electoral college should not be abolished.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by twilke 4 years ago
twilke
Look, my opponent used Yahoo as a source. I could go on Yahoo and say that the USA is communist, and that every other country is a republic, except us. Anybody can put anything on Yahoo. Please reconsider your sources vote.
Posted by johannes 4 years ago
johannes
I mean, really. My opponent spelled THE wrong in the title! He spelled swing states as SING states. Who do you think really had better grammar, @qopel
Posted by twilke 4 years ago
twilke
Dylip, excuse me, but my sources were 30x better than my opponent. He used Yahoo as a source. Yahoo!?
Posted by johannes 4 years ago
johannes
@qopel, excuse me, but I believe I had 30x better grammar than my opponent. Please reconsider your vote.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
twilkejohannesTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: The votes for Con were biased and for personal reasons. They had nothing to do with a fair evaluation of the debate.
Vote Placed by Dylip 4 years ago
Dylip
twilkejohannesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The Electoral Colleges should not be destroyed, they're a helpful part of the presidential election and will remain helpful.