The Instigator
EXOPrimal
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrendanD19
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Electoral College

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: 12/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 912 times Debate No: 98112
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

EXOPrimal

Pro

Debate Settings
10,000 Character arguments
72 Hour argument time
14 Day Voting
Opponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debated and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a comment

Complete Topic
Should the Electoral College be preserved?

Note: Contender is debating against the preservation of the electoral college

Terms
Electoral College
(in the US) a body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president.

Preserved
maintain (something) in its original or existing state.

Rules
1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.
8. No "K's" on the topic.
9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login
10.For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate

Debate Format
R1: Con Accepts
R2: Pro Arguments. Con Arguments
R3: Pro Rebuttals, Con Rebuttals
R4: Pro Defence, Con Defence and Further Rebuttals
R5: Pro Defence, Further Rebuttals, and Conclusion, Con Defence and Conclusion

I Thank My Opponent In Advance For Accepting This Debate And Wish Him The Best Of Luck
BrendanD19

Con

I want to thank the Pro for creating this debate, and I look forward to an interesting discussion. I accept the rules and conditions he set out in his opening.
In this debate I will be arguing in favour of reforming the electoral college.
Reforming shall be defined as "to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc."
Debate Round No. 1
EXOPrimal

Pro

C1: Regional Differences
A. The electoral college is excellent in giving smaller states representation in an election. Without the electoral college smaller states would be irrelevant in an election, and candidates would ignore them. The electoral college lets the less populous states in the middle of our country get a voice in our country.

B. For example, in 2012 a topic in the election was military bases, key issues in florida and south carolina. Without the electoral college this topic, along with many others, would be dwarfed by the issues that californians or new yorkers consider important.

C. A big issue in the 2016 presidential election was police shootings and violence, which is a big problem in only a few states, but the electoral college forced this pressing issue to be acknowledged. The states where this is an issue has an electoral vote, and this vote causes the candidates to acknowledge this.

D. The majority of this nation’s population in democratic party, and because of this the republican party would lose much of it’s power. This creates a president that is not receptive to the republican part of the population.

C2: Better Candidates
A. The electoral college creates better candidates that are more aware of the places in the united states. The create candidates that are more on the middle of the spectrum instead of the ends, which is what a popular vote would create.

B. If we were under a popular vote democratic candidates could only focus on the costs, and the republican candidates could only focus on the south. This creates very extreme candidates that would not be responsive to the other part of our population. This, of course, is not an advantage because a part of the population would feel oppressed for 4 years or more.

C. The electoral college leads to candidates being more moderate, which leads them to be more receptive to the population as a whole. This is good overall because the entire population would feel at least a little represented in the population, and none would feel completely ignored.

C3: Pure Democracy is Not Advantageous
A. The united state is not a democracy, we are a Federal Republic. A popular vote would be completely democratic, and that is simply not what the US is. The Electoral college is the perfect mix between democracy and a republic.

B. A pure democracy leads quickly to anarchy. A group with a large population would rule the rest of the population, which leads to an oppressed minority. Oppression is never good, and almost always leads to conflict, as seen in Iran or in the American civil war.

C. Our founding fathers were scared of a strong state that would create a dictatorship, the youngest child learns this from school. Lesser known was that they also fear anarchy, which they believed lead from democracy. The electoral college is part of the balance that they created.

C4: Efficiency
A. The electoral college rarely makes mistakes, and when it does the problems are easy to isolate and fix. A popular vote is messy, and because of this the result of the election would take longer to realise, and mistakes are very hard to fix. If the result may be flawed would necessarily have to have another election. Counting popular votes is very messy.
BrendanD19

Con

Contention 1: Swing States
Perhaps the biggest and most glaring issue with the electoral college is the fact that it leads to the creation of swing states. Swing states are states in which there is greater partisan competition, thus the races in these states are the most competitive and are the deciding states in the election. The problem with this is that it gives certain states (like Ohio, Florida, and Pensylvania) greater sway in the election and thus candidates spend most of their time and resources in these states, and they will tailor their policies and their message to appeal to voters in these states. This all comes at the expense of the approximately 40 other states, which are effectively ignored by candidates as a result.

Contention 2: Inequality of Influence
As mentioned in contention 1, the creation of swing states as a result of the electoral college grants more influence to certain states, and subsequently the voters in those states. Swing states compose approximately 18% of the US population, meaning that this small minority of voters has exponentially more influence than the remaining 82% of voters. This inequality of influence is a clear violation of the basic democratic principle of equal influence in government. As a democratic republic, it is imperative that the US upholds these principles.
In addition, the simple voter to elector ratio is skewed in a way which makes a single vote in that state more impactful than a vote in another state. This means that fewer people again have a greater amount of influence of the presidency.

Contention 3: Limits Choices and Harms 3rd Parties
The electoral college plays a major role in maintaining the two party system. This is because all but 2 states elect their electors in a winner take all manner, meaning a candidate only needs to win a simple majority in order to win all of the electors. In solid states like Kansas (my home state) any vote which is not for a Republican is effectively meaningless, as the result in Kansas is practically a bygone conclusion. This particularly hurts third parties, as people feel they are more obligated to vote for the candidate who is likely to do second best to increase that candidate's chances. This limits the options and the span of the debate in politics.

Solutions
As the topic of this debate is the preservation of the electoral college, I will be focusing more on the problems in the electoral college as it currently exists. I will, however, provide two possible alternatives to the status quo. The first is the most obvious: Direct election of the president. This is a very obvious solution and to many makes the most sense. Alternatively, the electoral college could be preserved, and make the electors proportionally elected, rather than winner take all, so the electors would better represent the will of the voters in each state.

Sources
http://fivethirtyeight.com...
http://www.cnn.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.uscis.gov...
http://www.usnews.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Debate Round No. 2
EXOPrimal

Pro

Swing States
A. Of course swing states are not ideal, but are they really as bad as Con makes them out to be? If we look at voter statistics in swing states, then we can see that swing states also have advantages.

B. If we look into the voter composition of the voters in swing states you can see that the composition is much more equal than other states(1). If we look at wisconsin, you can see that 48% of votes went to Donald Trump and 47% to Hillary Clinton in this latest election(2). You guys can explore that map more if you wish, but my point is that the parties are very balanced in these states. Every vote in these states matter, so as a result the candidates will try to appeal to people of both parties. This leads to less extreme candidates.

C. Voter turnout in swing state is higher than non-swing states. People in swing state have a higher political education, because they know their vote counts. These are both advantages of swing states. In conclusion, swing states may not be great, but they have their advantages. No system is perfect

Influence
A. A major point of my opponents is the fact that the electoral college causes an inequality in voting. This is true, but this inequality causes higher voter turnout and higher political education which I presented in my first argument in this round. This influence does not demonstrate a lower voter turnout in other states, so it can’t be bad.

B. “This inequality of influence is a clear violation of the basic democratic principle of equal influence in government.” Another basic principle of democracy is being ruled completely by the people, which of course, is not our government. In a democracy the people decide everything, from the smallest law to decleration of war. We are not a perfect democracy.

Solid States
A. States are not as solid as people may think. I currently live in Texas. Texas is considered to be one of the reddest state out there. In this recent election Texas was not as red as people may believe, with Hillary winning 43% of the votes.

B. The voters in solid states such as California are primarily democratic, so if california goes to the democratic party a majority of the population will be celebrating. The populations in these solid states prefer one party, and we cannot blame the electoral college for this.

3rd Party
A. in this last lection 3rd party candidates won less than 5% of the popular vote, so even if we were operating under a different system the fate of a third party would not change.

Citations
1. http://www.politico.com...
2. http://www.politico.com...
3.http://www.usatoday.com...
4.http://www.nytimes.com...
BrendanD19

Con


Response to Pro Contentions (Round 2)

Pro Contention 1: Regional Differences

The Pro claims that the Electoral college is good because it gives smaller states more representation, and makes candidates care about the issues in smaller states. The problem with this argument is that by giving smaller states more representation it gives them a disproportionate influence over the electoral college, as I mentioned in Contention 2. Wyoming is perhaps the most significant example of this. Wyoming has a population of 453,588 and has three electoral votes. This means there are 152,000 Wyomingites for each elector. California meanwhile has 29,760,021 residents and 54 electoral votes, or about 551,000 people per elector. This means that a single vote in Wyoming has 3.6 times more voting power than a vote in California (1). This is a clear violation of the democratic notion of equal influence.

Additionally, most small states (including my home state of Kansas) are considered “solid states”, and are therefore ignored by candidates in the General election because they know there is no need to campaign for these electoral votes.


Pro Contention 2: Better Candidates

The Pro claims that the electoral college forces candidates to move to the center of the political spectrum, however, he never demonstrates why this is, only claims that they need to appeal to voters in swing states. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that candidates moderate their tone because of the electoral college. In the 2016 election, the majority of swing states went to Donald Drumpf, who was in no way a “moderate” candidate. Candidates work to win voters over to their side through rhetoric, media, advertising and campaigning. If what the Pro says is accurate, candidates would not need to convince voters at all.

The Pro also claims that Democrats would campaign only on the coast (referring to the West Coast and the Northeast), and Republicans in the South, if the Electoral college were to be abolished. This is simply unrealistic as neither of these regions contains a majority of the US population (2), and partisan divides exist within these states, and thus no candidate could acquire the support needed to win the presidency.


Pro Contention 3: “Pure” Democracy

The Pro claims the US is not a democracy, however, this is simply untrue. While the US is not a DIRECT democracy, in which ALL laws are decided by direct vote rather than by representative bodies, the United States is a democratic republic, which is a form of representative democracy (3).

Therefore electing the president in a way which accurately represents the views of the electorate (such as the ways I proposed in the Solutions section in Round 2) should be preferred to the undemocratic electoral college, which violates basic democratic principles (as previously discussed).

The Pro further claims that direct democracy leads to anarchy, however this is not in any way relevant to this debate as we are not debating the abolition of all representative institutions, only the direct election of the president, something which is already done in many other countries and is done with nearly every other elected office in the US.


Pro Contention 4: Efficiency

In this contention, the Pro alleges that having a popular vote is inefficient and “messy” and thus it is a bad idea. This argument is illogical, however, as the electors are already elected by a popular vote. Americans vote for the candidate of their choice already, however this vote is counted towards electors, not the candidate themselves.


Defense of My Arguments

Contention 1: Swing States

The Pro argues that the creation of swing states is a good thing because it increases voter turnout, voter education and somehow makes candidates more moderate (a point I addressed earlier this round). None of these arguments however actually address the problem with swing states that I pointed out in my argument. Moreover, the Pro concedes that the votes in these states are more impactful than in states like Kansas, and this only proves my second contention, that this gives some voters more influence than others, which is a violation of the democratic principle of equality.


Contention 2: Inequality of influence

The Pro says that the inequality of influence cannot be a bad thing because it increases voter turnout and education in some states and that since he does not see it as impacting voter turnout in other states it cannot be a bad thing. There are two main problems with this argument. First, this does not address in any way the actual argument being made, which was that the inequality of influence violates basic democratic principles. Secondly, the measurement of what is bad in this argument is how much influence a single vote has compared to another, not what turnout is.

The Pro then again reiterates his argument about the US and Democracy, however, I addressed this in my response to his 3rd Contention.


Contention 3: Limits Choices and Hurts Third Parties

The Pro divides his response here into two sections, one titled “Solid States” and the other titled “3rd Party. The Pro first argues that “solid states are not as solid as people think”, citing his home state of Texas. While what the Pro says is true, it does not change the fact that the winner take all system, in which a candidate only needs a simple majority to win 100% of the electors. Even if the results in that state are close, this does not change the fact that one candidate got everything and the rest received nothing. This is the problem that I highlight in my argument, which goes mostly ignored in his response.

He then claims that any reform will not benefit third parties as no third party received 5% of the vote in the last election. This does not address the point of my argument, which was that the winner take all nature of the electoral college discourages people from voting for third parties as people decide to vote for the candidate who is more likely to win a larger percentage of the vote in order to increase that candidate's chances of getting the electoral votes, rather than voting for their preferred candidate. The Pro does not address this point at all and thus it goes conceded.


Sources

1. http://tech.mit.edu...

2. http://www.ipl.org...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Debate Round No. 3
EXOPrimal

Pro

Defence

C1: Regional Differences

The point of the electoral college is to give these small states, like Kansas, representation. Con goes into an argument about how there are less people to one vote in Wyoming than in California. This is the point of the electoral college, by giving these states representation their needs can be heard.

Con claims, “This is a clear violation of the democratic notion of equal influence.” The electoral college is, in nature, undemocratic. If it was then our election would be decided by popular vote. Each electorate is elected by the people of his region, they then vote for the president. This is similar to the Senate, each state gets two senators even though states have different population. Does this not also violate “the democratic notion of equal influence”? We are a Liberal democracy, but we are also a constitutional federal republic(1). Certain parts of the government, including the senate and the electoral college, are inherently undemocratic. We do this so the issues in small states will not be dwarfed by the issues in other larger states. This originates back to the creation of this country’s legislature.

In Con’s specific example of Wyoming and California he points out how votes in Wyoming are worth more. But california has 54 votes so it is very unlikely that the issue of California will be dwarfed by issues of Wyoming.

Con does claim that states that are “solid”, like his home states of Kansas, are “ ignored by candidates in the General election because they know there is no need to campaign for these electoral votes.” During her campaign, Hillary clinton hosted a rally in Kansas City(2). Kansas was not ignored by Hillary. Trump hosted a rally in California, another “solid state”(3).

C2: Moderate Candidates

This year's election was an outlier among many, only in five elections has a person one the popular vote but not won an election(4). Besides the 2000 election, the last time this happened was in 1888. In the electoral college system battleground states are very important. There is a more even amount of democrats and republicans in these states. The election in florida this year was very close, Trump won by less than 2%(5).

Because of this even distribution candidates have to try to appeal to every possible voter in the state to win. Their policies will have to appeal to the people of their party, but also to appeal to the people that do not affiliate to a party. Because of this they need to stand closer to the middle of the spectrum so they can appeal to more people. If you are closer to the middle of the spectrum you do receive more popular votes. For example, Obama was one of the more moderate candidates in the recent years, and he won the election(6). Clinton won the popular vote and she was much more moderate that Trump.

On where candidate would campaign, Con claims “This is simply unrealistic as neither of these regions contains a majority of the US population”. This was not what I was trying to get at, let us look at an electoral college map of the 2012(we will be using this election because in this election Trump won without winning the popular vote) election(7). As you guys can see the democratic candidate, Obama, won states near the coast. He won California and the new england states. Meanwhile Romney won states in the south . If this was a popular vote system the democratic candidate would only try to appeal to the people of the coast because that is where the democratic majority is. Our democratic candidate would try to win over every democrat, so their policies would be far to the left. Similarly the republican candidate would have policies on the far right so he/she can win the votes in the states in the south because that is where his/her majority lies.

C3 “Pure” Democracy

My defence of this point ties with my defence of my first contention, but I will reiterate. There are part of our government that break the democratic ideal of equal representation. The senate is the key example, this is so the laws passed will not only benefit large states. Our government breaks this principle in order to protect the minority.

C4 Efficiency

Con claims “however, as the electors are already elected by a popular vote. Americans vote for the candidate of their choice already, however this vote is counted towards electors, not the candidate themselves.” which is simply wrong. If we have an election dispute of a certain elector it is easy to isolate the problem early in the election stage to a small area. If there is dispute of an election result in the electoral college system it is easy to isolate the problem. This was seen in florida in the 2000 election. The problem with the popular vote system is that if there is an election dispute the entire vote would have to be recounted. The electoral college is clearly more efficient than a popular vote.

Rebuttals

R1: Swing States

I address swing states in the defence of my second contention, but I will reiterate. Con’s main problem with swing states is that candidates put more effort into these states and other states are “ignored”. In the last part of the defence of my first contention I showed that almost no state is effectively ignored. Trump had rallies in California and Maine, and Clinton had rallies in Kansas and Texas. Candidates do put more time into swing states, but it is not “at expense of the approximately 40 other states”. I have also defended how swing states make candidates more moderate in my second contention.

R2: Influence

I have addressed this point continuously throughout this round, and I feel that I am simply repeating myself now. To put it bluntly, our government does not follow the notion of equal influence so we can protect the minorities. This is advantageous because if we had equal influence the majority could dominate the minority and lead to oppression.

R3 Limited choice

The winner take all system is not written in law. For example in 1968 North Carolina had 13 electoral vote, 12 went republican and 1 went to the third party(8). The winner take all system is not part of the electoral college, and Nebraska and Maine do not follow this system. This is not a problem with the electoral college, just a problem on how states distribute their electoral votes.

R3 Third Party

If a third party had a majority then they would win states, the 1968 is also an example of this(9). Con’s point in this part of this debate is the winner take all nature, which I have pointed out is not a part of the electoral college.

Citations

1.https://www.reference.com...
2.http://fox4kc.com...
3. https://www.youtube.com...
4.https://en.wikipedia.org...
5.http://www.politico.com...
6.https://www.washingtonpost.com...
7.http://www.270towin.com...
8.http://heavy.com...
BrendanD19

Con


Rebuttals

C1: Regional Differences
The pro reiterates his claim the electoral college exists to give smaller states representation. This doesn’t change the fact it gives fewer people more influence over a single office, which is a violation of democratic principles.
The pro concedes the electoral college is undemocratic and that the US is a democratic republic. It, therefore, follows that basic democratic principles should be followed.
He cites the senate as an undemocratic and as being like the electoral college, however as the senate represents 100 offices each elected by popular vote, while the electoral college exists to elect one office, this analogy falls flat. Additionally, as this debate is about the electoral college and not the US senate, the argument the Pro is attempting to make is simply a red herring.
He responds to my argument about the disproportionate influence that Wyoming voters have vs the influence California voters have; however, he says that it simply doesn’t matter because California won’t be ignored because they have more electors. That is not at all the point of the argument. The argument was that this unequal distribution of influence is unfair and undemocratic, not about the influence of states, but the influence of voters.
The con responds to my argument around solid states by claiming Hillary Clinton hosted a rally in Kansas City and Donald Drumpf hosted a rally in California. Both of these examples are extremely flawed as the “rally” Hillary Clinton “hosted” in September of 2016 was not actually in Kansas, it was in Missouri, a fact stated in the first line of the article he cited (1). Moreover, Clinton was in Kansas City, Missouri for the National Baptist Convention. It was not an actual campaign event, but an appearance at an independent event. Drumpf’s Rally in California meanwhile was a campaign event for the California primary, not the general election and is, therefore, irrelevant to this debate (2). In actuality, 94% of the campaign events were held in only 12 states, and most of them happened to be swing states. Two-thirds of the campaign events were held in only 6 states. Most other states got between 0-5 visits from candidates (3).

C2: Moderate Candidates
The Pro again says the candidates need to be in the center so they can appeal to more voters in swing states, however as I previously pointed out, Donald Drumpf was able to win over people in Swing states, without being more moderate. While Clinton won the popular vote, under the system the Pro is defending this simply does not matter.
The Pro again claims that under a popular vote system, candidates would only campaign in a few regions, those being where their support bases are. This simply does not make any sense, however, as in addition to the fact that none of these regions contain even close to a majority of the US population, there are not enough democrats or republicans alone to elect a president. The largest segment of American voters is the independents at 42%, and thus winning the election depends on winning over independents (4). Simply preaching to the choir would not result in a victory for any candidate.

C3 “Pure” Democracy
The Pro reiterates his red herring about the senate, which I have already addressed and will not waste characters explaining again. None of what is stated in this argument is a response to what I said in round 3.
Moreover, the Pro conceded this contention when he states the US is a “liberal democracy”.

C4 Efficiency
The Pro claims that the electoral college is more efficient because of the complexity of recounts, however, given recounts are conducted on a local level, and elections are controlled by state and local authorities, not by the national government. He cites the example of Florida in 2000, however, in the 2000 election, the entire issue centered around local recounts and the overall election result in Florida, which would determine who won all of Florida’s electors. Nothing would change in regards to this under a popular vote system, as the elections would still be controlled by the same authorities.


Defense

R1: Swing States
The Pro claims my problem with swing states is that candidates spend more time in these states, however in round two, I stated my issue is that these states have greater sway in the election, and that is why candidates spend more time there. The Pro does not address this point at all. The pro then goes on to claim that “almost no state is ignored” and the Clinton did have a rally in Kansas. However, as I previously pointed out this is not true, as Clinton attended an event in Missouri, but it was not a campaign event, and I cited a source which pointed out that 94% of the 399 campaign events in 2016 were in only 12 states. 23 states meanwhile were not visited at all, among them Kansas(3). The Pro also cited a primary election stop in California by Donald Drumpf, however, that stop is not relevant to the debate being had at all.

R2: Influence
The Pro claims that unequal influence is meant to protect minorities, however, this doesn’t change the fact that this violates democratic principles and his previous defense was nothing more than a red herring. This argument had simply gone unanswered.

R3 Limited choice
The Pro claims that “winner take all” is not written in law, however, this is blatantly false. As previously stated in all but 2 states, the electors have decided in a winner take all manner. While electors are able, in some states, to vote for whoever they want to, this does not change the fact that the electors are elected on a ticket. The Pro claims that my argument is against the way the electors are distributed by the states and this is not a problem with the electoral college itself, however, this is utterly asinine. It is the role of the Pro to defend the electoral college in its current form. In its current form, the electoral college is, with two exceptions, decided in a winner take all manner, and this is why one of my proposed solutions was adopting a proportional system for electors.

R3 Third Party
The Pro again does not address my argument, which is that the winner take all nature of the electoral college makes people less willing to vote for third parties. The Con does not address this at all, instead, he points to the 1968 election, which is an outlier and was the last time a third party won electoral votes.


1: http://fox4kc.com...
2: https://www.youtube.com...
3: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...
4: http://www.gallup.com...
Debate Round No. 4
EXOPrimal

Pro

Defence

Contention 1
Con’s argument about democratic principles does not work. We are not a complete democracy, so we do not need to follow each ideal of democracy. If we compare the breaking of an principle to an oppressed minority I think it is painfully obvious what we should support. On my claim on the senate, I included that argument to show that not everything in our government follows the democratic ideals. This does not make it a red herring. Con also claims that my analogy falls flat, but using his logic it would not matter what the senate does, it still breaks the democratic ideal of equal representation.

Contention 2
The reason that there are a majority of undecided voters in the US is because of the electoral college. In a popular vote system, the democratic candidate could campaign solely to the coasts and win the White House, and the republican candidate could do the same in the South and Midwest. The candidates would pander to certain groups, dividing the populace as a whole. Our current system forces candidates to be moderate, representing all Americans.

Contention 3
Con claimed that I conceded this point when I said that the US was a liberal democracy. The point of this contention was to prove that pure democracy was not ideal. By stating that the US was a liberal democracy and a constitutional republic I have not conceded anything. A pure democracy is not good.

Contention 4
Con’s refutation of this point is weak. He claims that the election would still be in hold of local authorities, but If this was a popular vote system there would be no point in the election being in hold of these authorities. We commonly refer to it as eliminating the middleman. Under the electoral college there is a regional subdivision, which makes it easier to isolate a problem. Under the popular vote, the entire population would vote directly for president, and the entire country would work as a whole.

Rebuttals
R1 Swing States
"The Pro also cited a primary election stop in California by Donald Trump, however, that stop is not relevant to the debate being had at all. "

It is relevant, because California is considered a blue solid state. Under Con’s logic there would be no point in Trump campaigning there.

R3 Limited Choice
"The Pro claims that “winner take all” is not written in law, however, this is blatantly false."

If this was so “blatantly false”, why did Con not link a law. In his defence Con does to explain how states parcel out votes in a winner take all fashion. I never said that states did not, I just said that it was not written in a legal document. Con has not provided a document with this written in it because there isn’t one.
BrendanD19

Con

Rebuttals

Contention 1

The Pro attempts to rebut my argument concerning democratic principles is irrelevant as the US is not a direct democracy. This simply makes no sense, as the basis of a DEMOCRATIC republic is that it is a republic committed to democratic principles, namely the equality of influence. The example of the senate is, in fact, a red herring as it has nothing to do with the electoral college and should be disregarded because of this. Even if the Senate is a violation of democratic principles, this does not in any way justify the Pro’s argument nor does it delegitimize mine. As the Pro has not contested that the electoral college violates democratic principles, it has therefore been conceded.

Contention 2

The allegation by the Pro that the electoral college is what causes undecided voters is simply illogical. People are undecided in every election, and eliminating the electoral college would do nothing to affect this. The Pro reiterates the claim that candidates would only campaign in their strongholds if the Electoral college were abolished, however as I previously pointed out this makes no sense, as there are not enough voters in these strongholds to secure an election, in addition to the fact that there are not enough voters affiliated with either party for candidates to secure the election on their own, as I pointed out in Rounds 3 and 4.

The Pro also adds a new argument claiming that candidates would begin pandering to certain groups and this would divide the populace up. The fact of the matter is that this is happening in the status quo. Pandering has been a key feature of elections for a long time, and in this last election we saw candidates pander to the Latino community, Evangelicals, millennials, the African American community, etc. (1)

Contention 3

The Pro claims that his contention that “Pure democracy is not good” has not been conceded, and while he did not concede that direct direct democracy is a bad thing, I never in this debate contended that “pure democracy” was a good thing, and that the US is a democratic republic and therefore democratic principles apply. By conceding these points, the Pro effectively made this argument irrelevant.

Contention 4

The Pro states that there would be no reason for local election authorities to exist under a popular vote system, however, this claim is simply unfounded, as local election authorities exist not only for presidential elections but for state and local elections as well. Eliminating the electoral college would not end the need for local election authorities to exist as local and state elections will still be happening on the same day as the presidential election. It would, therefore, make the most sense for the elections to be governed at the local level. Additionally, given that laws for ballot access, voter registration, ballot printing, etc. vary from state to state, it would not make any sense for the federal government to be in charge of enforcing state election laws, in addition to the fact this would be blatantly unconstitutional. None of the Pro’s claims on this contention have any bearing.


Defense

C1 Swing States

The Pro alleges that Donald Trump’s appearance in California during the primary election is relevant because “California is a blue state”. This completely ignores the fact that the primary election is competitive in far more states than the general election, and Trump was there to promote himself prior to the Republican Primary in California. As Trump was not campaigning for the General election in that example given by the Pro, the example is irrelevant.

C2: Inequality of Influence

The Pro has failed to respond to this argument and thus it goes conceded.

C3 Limits Choice

The Pro seems not to understand that the distribution of electors is decided by the States, of which there are 50. I do not have the time or the characters to go over all 50 states’ laws concerning the distribution of electors, however, if the pro demands a source saying this is how it is set up, I will refer him to sources number 2 and 3. Where it is decided in the law varies from state to state however as both of this articles show, "winner take all" is the system by which electors are elected and this must, as with all legal matters, be determined by the laws of these states.

C3 Third Parties

The Pro has failed to respond to this argument and thus it goes conceded.


Conclusion

In this debate, I have shown that the electoral college violates basic democratic principles, limits choices, and disadvantages third parties. The Pro has made several claims to support his contention, yet all of them have failed to adequately support his claims. He has further failed to address my contentions, leaving several points unanswered and thus conceded.

Thank you and Vote Con.


Sources

1) http://www.attn.com...

2) https://www.archives.gov...

3) http://www.fairvote.org...



Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by BrendanD19 1 year ago
BrendanD19
No Problem, I actually just drafted the argument, and I cited my sources as requested.
I should note that for one of my sources I did have to do some math using the info from the source to get the data I wanted (It gives state populations and I wanted the percentage of the US and then I had to add them together to get the regions)
Posted by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
I guess i wasn't clear enough, sorry. I meant that if you use a source you have to indicate where it is used in the argument, like what i did in R3. thank you again.
Posted by BrendanD19 1 year ago
BrendanD19
Really? I thought that was what you meant when you said citations must be posted in text
Posted by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
BrendanD19,
My argument is coming up soon, you accidentally broken rule 2. I don't think this should be counted against you but just wanted to point this out. Thanks for the debate.
Posted by Vox_Ex_Rationis 1 year ago
Vox_Ex_Rationis
This is beyond my level. O_o
No votes have been placed for this debate.