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

Should we Abolish & Get rid of the Electoral College?

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: 11/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 954 times Debate No: 104893
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




We should definitely abolish the electoral college.


I thank the instigator for the opportunity for this debate. As their first round did not provide arguments, I will, in fairness accept only in round one, and reply to their statement that the electoral college should be abolished.

I respond in the alternative, that the electoral college ought not to be abolished.

I look forward to a hearty but respectful debate with my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


We should definitely abolish the electoral college. Let's go back a little in history. The founding fathers established the electoral college in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. This was actually helpful back then. Meanwhile today, the distribution of Electoral College votes per state is not equally dispersed. Here is a quote that actually sums up this statement. As explains, "For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499." This is basically giving smaller states more electoral votes than larger states. With the Electoral College, the vote's value depends on the state the person lives in. Second, in 48 states, a presidential candidate can win 50.01% of the popular vote in a state, yet receive 100% of the electoral votes from that state. There are safe states and swing states. Safe states are states that are historically proven to always vote in favor of the candidate of a particular party. Safe states for Republicans include Texas, Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee and Indiana, amongst others. Safe states for Democrats include New York, California, Maryland, Illinois and Washington, amongst others. The Huffington Post states, "Under an Electoral College voting process, an individual vote is only as valuable as its ability to influence the majority vote of a state." These are just a few of the faults in the Electoral College process. There are a many more if we need to name them. I am just trying to highlight some of the important ones. Thank you.


In round #2 Pro laid the foundation of their position and reasoning behind suggesting the Electoral College ought to be abolished. Con appreciates their position, but strongly disagrees.
According to Pro: "Let's go back a little in history. The founding fathers established the electoral college in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. This was actually helpful back then. Meanwhile today, the distribution of Electoral College votes per state is not equally dispersed."
Con holds also that history is a very important teacher. The framers of the Constitution were great students of the history of civilization. This knowledge of human history and of governments, along with the difficulty of protecting liberty, lead them to develop the electoral college for the selection of the president. A central theme which runs throughout the Federalist Papers, the premiere contemporaneous defense of the proposed constitution, is the fear of federal overreach. The federal government, of which the President is the executive, is a creation of the states. That needs to be absorbed, as it has been largely forgotten. The states created the federal government. The power of the federal government was limited by design, to lengthen the time we might be able to maintain our freedom. As such, the intended purpose of the Electoral College was to have a president in effect chosen by the states, not by a democratic vote. The framers understood the danger of democracy and were strongly opposed to this sort of tyranny.
Further Pro seems to feel that each individual vote in each of the various states should carry the same weight in the election. This again is a nod toward direct democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Originally and until it was unwisely modified by the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Senators were not elected by popular vote. The were chosen prior to that time by the respective state legislatures. Why? This was be design and with a purpose. Remember, the federal government was a creation of the states, and they rightly felt a prerogative to maintain some leverage over it, to keep it in check. Our legislative branch of government was created to be bicameral, having a House of Representatives, directly elected and responsive to the people, and a Senate, chosen by the states to protect their interests from federal overreach. Since the implementation of the 17th amendment we have what amounts to a unicameral legislature, where the senate is simply a pointless mirror of the House of Representatives.
The selection of Senators by the states was, as is the Electoral College, an essential part of our properly functioning Republic. This form of government has been under attack from the beginning, because the freedom it handed to people who live under it are unheard of in human history, and freedom in general has not been the normal state of mankind. Oppression has instead been the rule for most of our fellow men. Removing the Electoral College, while not the first, nor the last, step toward a purely democratic tyranny of the majority, would constitute another great step in that direction. Governments of free people are meant to protect the minority from the majority-the majority would not need any protection in a democracy, and the minority would have none. All of these little steps toward democracy and away from a representative republic are like death of liberty by 1,000 cuts. No one is fatal. Together, they end in death.
Debate Round No. 2


I respectfully disagree.
By electing our President based on who the majority of our population selects, the vote of every American citizen would hold equal weight and significance. This would be without the inclusion and interference of the Electoral College. Under this new system, when we vote for President we would actually be voting for President. We would not be instructing "electors" on how we want them to vote. The American peoples' will would always be executed and honored, and could never be thwarted.
With the Electoral College, the voting power of the people has been disturbed and unequally distributed across our nation. It"s time that we begin to amend our broken process.
Thank you for taking this time to debate with me. I fully respect your views, but my opinion stands strong and has not wavered.


I wish to thank Pro for a courteous, polite debate. Unfortunately this has become a rarity, and Pro"s excellent conduct is to be commended and considered by those reviewing this debate.
According to Pro, "By electing our President based on who the majority of our population selects, the vote of every American citizen would hold equal weight and significance." This describes exactly what the framers of our constitution intended to prevent. This is not an unforeseen, unintended consequence. It is this way by design. The selection of the chief executive at the federal level was by intent not selected by a democratic vote. His position, created by agreement among the states, is to be filled by votes cast by the states who created it, the votes determined by each state"s own election process. This is why you see a variety of election processes for the one office of president when looking state to state. The office of president is their creation and falls intentionally under their purview in the election process. During the vote, the states are each guaranteed a minimum of 3 electoral college votes, regardless of population. The number from each state is the same as the number of senators and House members from that state, thus mirroring the state"s influence on the legislative process. This is to protect each and every state"s interests in selecting the president. A mob rule, or democratic vote, would strip the smaller state"s of any influence in selecting the occupant of the office they had created and over which they must exercise some control to keep the federal system from becoming overlarge and tyrannical. Our nation was designed brilliantly to be a union of states (nations) under a federal system which would provide common defense, treaties, etc. for those several states (nations). It is not part of the American ethos to surrender state powers to an ever increasing federal government, nor surrender them to the mob rule of democratic elections.
The electoral college is more than some quaint idea whose time has come and gone. The concept cannot become obsolete. Removing it, pushing the United States of America closer again to a pure democracy, not the representative republic it was meant to be, is another step away from liberty and toward the tyranny of the majority.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Throwback 2 years ago
What's this all about? Someone complaining about the voting? Seems kind of odd, as the vote went against me, and I wasn't the whiner!
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Hilarious! For the record, I had no hidden motive.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] RFDs are not required on this debate.

Note: The reporter"s concerns about the voter"s motives are not sufficient reason for removal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 

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