Attention: is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Electoral College- Why should we keep it?

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: 3/24/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 683 times Debate No: 120994
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




A trending topic for Democrats is the electoral college. I never knew how it worked until recently and I can see why Democrats want to reform or get rid of it. Please give rational subjective reasons why we should keep it.

My first point is that it is outdated due to reasons such as it does not represent the majority.


I accept, And to rebuttal your fist point, How does it not represent the majority? It represents all Americans and who voted for him. What changes do you want too?
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to take into consideration the weight for each elector. We have 538 electors, Which has not changed regardless l the growing nation. I would want it to consider counting the counties rather than the whole state.

Also, As a person from a rural area I fell my vote should be represented from the rural area j grew up. Urbanization has been increasing each year and I feel people from rural areas move to urban areas for better opportunity and growth. So, With that being said I feel the majority may be and is from a rural area and The vote should be considered and even credited for their birthplace and not where they move for a better life.


The purpose of the Electoral College was to not drown out any voices and represent those. For example blue workers in Pennsylvania won't be drowned out by the majority of people in New York or California. Their voices matter. The Electoral College works in the Democrats favor anyway. If we did counties, The republicans would destroy in every election. Another reason why we need the electoral college is because candidates will be elected by the people by state. Like in texas, If Trump scores the votes of farmers there and beats the high minority which tends to go blue. Trump should get that state because that is who wanted them.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand this but my logic on urbanization. I"m from rural Texas. I moved to Dallas for beggar kpportitny but my roots/upbringing are from rural Texas. It"s not valid because if I was to cast my vote from rural area where I"m frlm than that would be the correct representation of it. Lots of people move from rural areas to urban. Living in urban doesn"t represent the true you. If the people who moved back to their rural area than the vote would be true. So it"s not equal. People move to New York and California from rural USA. Their vote should be cast or valid from where they grew up so it can be a true representation of that county.


ok first of all the title is Why should we keep it? But your arguing for reforms. See the contradiction. Anyway in Rural your a farmer, Your not in a city
Debate Round No. 3


Welll first of all my argument is based on reasons why we should not keep it. It supports the fact that the popular vote goes in line with my argument; because of the popular vote. Due to urbanization the electoral vote needs to not constitute the voice of the majority since urbinzation repressed people who move from rural America to urban areas and the weight of their vote is not considered equal because of this. I know what rural is and rural is predominantly republican conservative voters; on paper but in reality is is people who don"t want to change and choose to not modernize and lack economic prosperity due to this. You can argue that agriculture is produced from rural areas but it"s modernized liberals and free thinkers who innovate the process of it.


When people move into cities, It doesn't really change anything. Just remaps the Electoral College. How does it not represent the majority? The Electoral College is balance. You have good arguments but can you elaborate and bring statistics.
Debate Round No. 4


https://www. 270towin. Com/historical-presidential-elections/timeline/

https://naldc. Nal. Usda. Gov/download/48485/PDF

https://en. M. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

Urbanization is nondebatable. People are always migrating from rural America to a more industrialized city for jobs and opportunity. In the mid 1990s there was a shift called the Rural Rebound. At this time people moved from urban areas back to their hometowns. If you look at the electoral map for 1996 election it all show a more representation of what an election may look like if it was truly fair and upholds my point that the rural areas are misrepresented because of where they live. My vote should respeesenr rural areas since that"s were I was born. You


How does it represent more people? How is it fairer? Your not explaining anything. You need to explain. Just a tip in the future

Why we need the electoral college


The democratic energies behind these denunciations offer a hint of the key problem with them. This is, After all, A constitutional republic, And even the most casual reader of the Constitution cannot fail to notice that the Electoral College is the only method specified by that document for selecting the president of the United States. For all the reverence paid to the popular vote in presidential elections, The Constitution says not a word about holding a popular vote for presidents.

Here is the election mechanism as it appears in Article 2, Section 1 (in a slightly abbreviated form, As it is the single longest part of the Constitution devoted to a single action, Accounting for nearly a tenth of the Constitution's original length):

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, And, Together with the Vice President, Chosen for the same Term, Be elected, As follows: Each State shall appoint, In such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, A Number of Electors, Equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. . . . The Electors shall meet in their respective States, And vote by Ballot for two Persons, Of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, And of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, And transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States. . . . The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, If such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed. . . .

This method was slightly altered by the 12th Amendment in 1804, But only slightly, And we have elected presidents in the same way ever since. There is no mention whatsoever of a popular vote, At any level. Each state is directed to appoint "a Number of Electors, Equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. " The states may make these appointments by whatever means they choose, With a few restrictions on who can be appointed.

While it is true that, Since the 19th century, Each state has decided to appoint its electors by a popular vote, This is a compliment to our democratic predilections and is not required by the Constitution. And it should be noted that popular votes for electors occur only within each state; the electors then go on to do the presidential balloting. Ridding ourselves of the Electoral College would not automatically install a national popular vote for the presidency; that would require a highly complicated constitutional amendment specifying comprehensive details for casting such a national vote, And might even trigger calls for a complete rewriting of the Constitution by convention. Simply doing away with the existing process without putting a new one in its place could create the biggest political crisis in American history since the Civil War.

But the Electoral College system is not only embedded in the structure of our constitutional governance; it is also emblematic of the fact that we are a federal republic. The states of the American Union existed before the Constitution and, In a practical sense, Existed long before the Revolution. Nothing guaranteed that the states would all act together in 1776; nothing guaranteed that, After the Revolution, They might not go their separate and quarrelsome ways (much like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century). What is more, The Constitution's predecessor, The Articles of Confederation, Very nearly invited such division. The Articles were, In their own terms, Only "a firm league of friendship with each other, " in which "[e]ach state retains its sovereignty, Freedom, And independence, And every power, Jurisdiction, And right. " The Confederation Congress had repeated difficulties assembling a quorum just to do business; even the treaty of peace with Great Britain that ended the Revolutionary War nearly expired because an insufficient number of delegates showed up for its ratification. The genius of the Constitutional Convention lay in its successfully drawing the American states toward a "more perfect union. " But it was still a union of states; we probably wouldn't have formed a constitution or a country at all had we not embraced federalism.

Abolishing the Electoral College now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, But it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, There would be no sense in having a Senate (which, After all, Represents the interests of the states), And eventually, No sense in even having states, Except as administrative departments of the central government. We structure everything in our political system around the idea of a federation that divides power between states and the federal governmentQ97;"Q97;states had to ratify the Constitution through state conventions beginning in 1787; state legislatures are required for ratifying constitutional amendments; and even the Constitution itself can only be terminated by action of the states in a national convention. Federalism is in the bones of our nation, And abolishing the Electoral College would point toward doing away with the entire federal system.

None of this, Moreover, Is likely to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, Like Great Britain, Where no one ever votes directly for a head of state. And there are federal republics that have maniacally complicated processes for electing leaders.

The German federal republic, For instance, Is composed (like ours) of states that existed as independent entities long before their unification as a German nation, And whose histories as such have created an electoral system that makes our "antiquated" Electoral College look like a model of efficiency. In the German system, Voters in 299 electoral districts each cast two votes in elections for the Bundestag (Germany's parliament): the first for a directly elected member and the second for one of 34 approved parties (in 2017), Whose caucuses then identify candidates. A federal president (Bundespr"sident) is elected every five years by a federal convention that reflects the party majorities in the Bundestag and the state parliaments of the 16 German states. Finally, The federal president proposes the name of the de facto head of state, The chancellor (Bundeskanzler) to the Bundestag. By contrast, The Electoral College is remarkably straightforward. It is also useful to bear in mind the examples set by some of the nations that do hold direct elections for their heads of state: Afghanistan, Iran, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, And Zimbabwe are just a few. Jettisoning the Electoral College for direct popular elections would not automatically guarantee greater democracy.

It's worth remembering, Too, That in 1787, The Constitutional Convention did not inadvertently stumble upon the mechanics of electing a presidentQ97;"Q97;the delegates lavished an extraordinary amount of attention on the subject. Edmund Randolph's original "Virginia Plan" for the Constitution had called for the creation of "a National Executive. . . To be chosen by the National Legislature" with "a general authority to execute the National laws. " But the great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that "[i]f we are to establish a national Government, " the president must be chosen by a direct, National vote of the people. Wilson claimed that an executive appointed by either house of the new Congress would be beholden to the legislature and have no resources to restrain legislative overreach.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
The electoral college is an obscenity left over from a backwards time
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Same can be said with an email Obama and Bush maps
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Swing states. You mean regions. Trump flipped a WHOLE region nit just a few states.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
" The purpose of the Electoral College was to not drown out any voices and represent those. "

- As someone who lives in California, Last time I checked, Anyone who votes red here is wasting their time voting. This logic applies also to Democrats living in Texas, Or democrats living in Alabama ETC. Whereas swing states such as Florida and Michigan have arguably more power in the general election than non-swing states. Because of this many presidents focus only on the swing states and very rarely focus on the stronghold states, And giving 3-4 states more power than the largest states is not only unreasonable but also drowns out a vast majority of votes.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Debates don't last forever; when their time runs out to post it will forfeit their round by default.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Do debates still last forever? I mean when someone fails to return and continue the debate and just lets the time run out. . . Will it get stuck like before or will it go back to the other person's turn so the debate will end?
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
We should keep it just to anger you. Here are my supporting claims.

1. It would be funny.
2. It's a popular choice and the current norm so it would be easy to pull off
3. It would be funny.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.