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

President Elected by Congress, not by the people

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: 3/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,620 times Debate No: 50004
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I know that this goes against what our founding fathers believe in, but I see no real harm done.. It is my opinion that American's vote for their Representatives and Senators for their political positions, say con abortion, then why shouldn't their Representatives and Senators be able to elect a President that is also against abortion themselves? Also having Congress elect the President would pretty much put an end to legislation blocking done by the president. An example being if we have a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, if Congress passes a law restricting the use of birth control the democratic President is going to block the legislation because of his political stance. But if Congress would elect the President, then we would have a Republican Congress and a Republican President, meaning that the law restricting birth control would get passed and not blocked. This system works out in countries like Britain and Japan. And again my major argument, that we would be electing our officials who would be electing our President, so in sense we would be electing out President inadvertently.


Well, there are obvious reasons why the Congress should not be allowed to vote for the President.

Firstly, as you said, it does not comply with the constitution that the nation was built on. As long as we continue to follow the rules the constitution lays out, we should continue to use the current voting system.

In addition, trust is an issue. Of course the people may vote for the Congressmen, but that doesn't mean that they are doing a good job in office. Most, if not all, Congressmen work for themselves to benefit themselves. They do not work for the interests of other. We may vote for them, but that does not ensure that they will listen to us.

Finally, you said that, "And again my major argument, that we would be electing our officials who would be electing our President, so in sense we would be electing out President inadvertently."
Well, they are not obliged to vote for the candidate the population says. They will once again makes a choice that will benefit themselves, and vote for whoever they want. These men and women are venal officials who are power-hungry, and, even though the current system is flawed, the newly proposed system would be even worse.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes but if we do not trust or like the officials we select, then why do we vote for them, if we don't like them? That is a problem with politicians and not how the government is structured. If people do not like the choices their officials in Congress are making then they should not reelect them.

Think if the President was elected by Congress we would sort of merging the legislative and executive branches, which would be very beneficial for passing legislation which is blocked by Republican Congress and Democratic President.

If this system of Congress elected the President was enacted, then if your Congressmen vote for a President that you don't like then you shouldn't reelect them, making them consider the opinions of the citizens they represent.

And your comment on 'venal officials who are power-hungry', what we could do to prevent these officials from being this way is installing term limits. Say Representatives can serve for four years then have to take a four year break before they can run again, and Senators can serve for unlimited terms, since they are to have more experience.

So if we can work out the kinks with bad officials in Congress, would you say that the system I am proposing would work? I still believe, even with 'venal officials' in Congress, that the system I am proposing would work.


I do not deny that the system is plausible, though I am saying that it will not be able to be reached, and even if it is, we are not able to ensure that it would work.
For example, let's look at the example of Obama right now. I am not against Obama, but his Presidency is a good example of my point. Well, when Obama first ran, he was voted in because his plans of reshaping our nation seemed so tangible. Though, I don't think anyone would have expected him to have made the changes he did. Did you ever expect such a thing as Obama-care?
My point from that example is that although we can ensure that the most seemingly beneficial people get elected, we are only basing this off of superficial opinions. We may vote for the most esteemed and trusted officials for Congress, but their actions may not be similar to the promises they made in their speeches.
The term limits seem like a nice idea, too, but a lot of damage can be done in four years. Even more harm can be done to the nation if the Senators, as you proposed, had unlimited terms.
Your proposition seems like a good plan, but will not be successful because the problems I mentioned above expose the flaws, and they hinder any notion that the system could work.
Debate Round No. 2


I see where you are coming from.. but I still strongly agree that this plan system would benefit the United States greatly. I mean look at Britain, you rarely hear of political problems because the Prime Minister is selected to be the same political party as the majority party in Parliament, this leads to more legislation be passed.

So if we had Congress elect our President, then the majority party in Congress, lets say Republican, would elect a Republican President. This would likely cause more legislation to be passed because both the President and Congress would be the same political party.

In your argument about officials saying they will do something, lets say legalizing marijuana, then when they are elected they don't do anything with the legalization of marijuana. Well that is again up to the people then if they should reelect that representative, even in the current system this is a problem I agree. But it comes down to the people who are electing their representatives.

And if in turn doing this would have more flaws than benefits, which I believe it wouldn't, then the people and/or states can call for the amendment of this system.

The term limits is a different debate, but I agree that they should be installed to the officials of congress to have fresh ideas enter the system.

And my last note is, that I could honestly live with not having this system installed, BUT I still see no problem with my proposed system. It would just get a lot more done in a country that seems to be stalled right now. If we could have Congress elect the President then we will have more needed legislation to be passed, and in turn that would help our country.


I, too, understand why you believe this system would work.
You gave an example of Britain where a similar system works very well. Though, there are examples of why this system would not work.
Let's look at our county's government again. When Obama-care first was proposed, they was some arguing and of course disagreement. Because it is split between Republicans and Democrats, one would expect the Republicans to rebuttal the idea. However, even though the Democrats are on Obama's "side", many now have deviated and are now against his ideas.

The point of that "real-life" example is to show that even when the political parties match, there will still not be a smooth process to pass a bill or get work done. One should not expect the Democrats to follow the Democrat President without any objection, nor should one call them renegades for going against him.

Lastly, when a Congressman chooses his/her political party, Republican or Democrat, that does not mean that they have to follow the strict characteristics of a Democrat. One may be a Republican, but still support the ideas of a Democratic President. Thus, we cannot expect them to simply pass a bill and work together because that implies that they don't have a voice of their own. In addition, think about that system. It would seemingly turn into a form of an "dictatorship". Not the kind people associate Louis XIV with, but rather, it would be a one party-ed run Congress where the majority blindly agree with the President and they together could pass whatever bill they want.
In conclusion, this system would not work. It may seem like a nice idea in one's thoughts, but, if executed, it would be a disaster. People would still not agree nor would any work get done faster. If there was total agreement, then this system could effectively turn the the President into a "monarch" who has the support of a "Parliament" by him. For these reasons, the system proposed by the Pro would not be plausible and would indeed not work.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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