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

the electoral college should be abolished

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 419 times Debate No: 55278
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I am arguing that the electoral college should not be abolished. First round acceptance and good luck


Hello. As we all know, a republic is defined as a system of government in which the people vote for and choose their leaders. It is not defined as a system in which the people vote for electors who then vote for presidential candidates. A "democratic" system in which voting is done by a small group of electors as opposed to the population as a whole is fundamentally flawed. It means that it's perfectly possible for a candidate to win the popular vote yet lose the electoral vote, which has happened. It also discourages voter turnout, as people are inclined to avoid voting since their votes don't actually decide the victor in an election. It also makes it much more difficult for small parties to win, since electors in entrenched "red" or "blue" states will always vote for Republican and Democrat candidates, respectively This means that even if a significant number of Republicans vote for their candidate in Illinois (or any other entrenched Democrat state), their votes won't mean anything. The only states that receive significant attention during elections are swing states, which do not have a specific voting tendency. This lack of a party allegiance means that swing states are some of the only states in which the vote of the people actually matters, and there were only 12 in the 2012 election. Lastly, It's perfectly possible to win the entire election just by taking 11 states, or just over 20% of the entire country. This is caused by the "winner takes all" voting system in all states (except for Maine and Nebraska), in which all electoral votes of a state are distributed to a single candidate. In conclusion, the electoral college is a flawed system that needs to be replaced with one that allows smaller parties to have a chance at winning and keeps larger parties from easily winning certain states.
Debate Round No. 1


1) A republic is defined as, "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."
This is an actual definition instead of self defined interpretation of what a Republic is. "Chosen directly or INDIRECTLY by them"- the president is chosen indirectly, but is still determined by popular vote.

2) Yes it is possibly for the winner of the election to loose popular vote, but is any system perfect? No! So why is the electoral college better than popular vote? It protects individuals in small states, and protects the views of the minorities. New York City has a population of 8.3 million, while both nebraska and iowa have a combined population of under 5 million. Iowa and Nebraska are two states known for farming, and the midwest is the "bread basket of the United States, and makes a large portion of the worlds food. If we have a popular vote only system farmers would not have a strong voice in the political spectrum. WHen one city is larger than many states combined, then many people will have worthless votes. Nobody will campaign in the midwest but only in large cities around the country. This is only one example of people loosing their voices. There are also ranches, and others who will loose their voices.

3) My opponent says that voters are discouraged from voting because he says their votes don't matter, but they actually do.

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA " Party Pledge / State Law " " 17-19-2
ALASKA " Party Pledge / State Law " " 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA " State Law " " 6906
COLORADO " State Law " " 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT " State Law " " 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA " DC Pledge / DC Law " " 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA " Party Pledge / State Law " " 103.021(1)
HAWAII " State Law " "" 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE " State Law " " 805
MARYLAND " State Law " " 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS " Party Pledge / State Law " Ch. 53, " 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN " State Law " "168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI " Party Pledge / State Law " "23-15-785(3)
MONTANA " State Law " " 13-25-104
NEBRASKA " State Law " " 32-714
NEVADA " State Law " " 298.050
NEW MEXICO " State Law " " 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA " State Law " " 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO " State Law " " 3505.40
OKLAHOMA " State Pledge / State Law " 26, "" 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON " State Pledge / State Law " " 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA " State Pledge / State Law " " 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT " State Law " title 17, " 2732
* VIRGINIA " State Law " " 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory " "Shall be expected" to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON " Party Pledge / State Law " "" 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN " State Law " " 7.75
WYOMING " State Law " "" 22-19-106; 22-19-108

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:



Over half the states have laws requiring electors to vote with the popular vote of the state. Yes some states don't, but electors vote with the popular vote more than 99% of the time. It is an extremely rare occurrence that an elector would vote against popular vote, and an elector voting against popular vote is not present in 20th century politics.
Popular vote would cause less people to turn out to vote, when a city is bigger than your entire state your vote has no effect.

4) Also, America is a two party system and even if we have popular vote a third party candidate will not win an election.

In 1976 North Carolina was a blue state, popular vote and electoral college voted democrat. North Carolina then became a consistent Republican state until 2008. In 2008 North Carolina became a "blue state" once again. This shows that entrenched states will not always vote the same way as my opponent has tried to show.
In 1992 Bill Clinton won 2,281,815 votes while the Republican candidate, George Bush, won 2,496,071 million votes. This is only about 200,000 vote difference. This shows that the right candidate can make a difference in "entrenched" states, as my opponent states.
In 2004 George W. Bush won 44% of the popular vote in california. Both Texas and California are the states most likely to continue to vote along party lines, but as shown they can be very close states in some elections.


Pax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend arguments and evidence, protect rural areas with small populations and vote to keep the electoral college


Interesting for you to bring up rural areas. Some might argue that the electoral college gives Republicans an unfair advantage by allowing rural areas with little population to hold a relatively large sway.
Debate Round No. 3


It is the parties responsibility to gain the support of the people. People choose the party that bests fits there views. To say that Republicans are having an unfair advantage is
1) an assumption that all rural voters vote republican which you have presented no evidence saying this and actually in 2012 democrats won 8 million rural votes while republicans won 12 million, while 4 million is a lot we can see that democrats can win rural voters. in 2008 democrats won 10.5 million while republicans won 13 million. THis shows that if the democratic party does its job and appeals to voters it can get votes in rural america.
2) saying that the electoral college is flawed because of this, when actually the democratic party does not support policies that rural voters like. It is up to the parties to gain support and the democratic party has to work to gain support of rural voters.

Also everything previous has gone uncountered so extend those arguments and evidence


Pax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Logan94 forfeited this round.


Pax forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Logan94 2 years ago
please vote
No votes have been placed for this debate.