The Electoral College should be abolished

The Electoral College should be abolished. Adapted from previous debate.

The key issue here is there is "no constitutional provision or federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states" and even under state law

In the 1836 Presidential election, the 23 electors from Virginia were pledged to vote for Democratic candidates Martin Van Buren for President) and Richard M. Johnson for Vice President. However, they abstained from voting for Johnson. This left Johnson with one fewer than a majority of electoral votes forcing the Senate to have to vote for the Vice-President.

The method used to determine electoral votes gives one Wyoming's vote the power of 3 Californians. [7] [8] This leaves a mismatch in representation which can lead to an inherent bias which gives preference to smaller states (measured by population).

This system has an inherent and systematic bias giving preferential treatment to one party over the other. This has huge implications. It has happened four times in Presidential history, each one a member of the Republican Party.

Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump, more and more democrats, including Hillary Clinton herself, have called for the removal of the electoral college, blaming it for her loss. They were okay with the electoral college when it was working in their favor, back when Barack Obama was the one winning the elections, but now that it has not worked in their favor, they want it gone.

[T]he Electoral College is undemocratic is exactly the point. It's not supposed to democratic.  All your arguments only work if you assume America's president is supposed to be elected democratically, but America's president is not supposed to be.

We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic.

• I agree the supreme law of the USA is the Constitution. (Wickersham, 1929)
  
• I agree that the United States is a republic.(Karlsson, 2009)
  
• The United States is a Democracy
  

I don't see how this is an actual "issue". In fact, forcing electors to vote based on the popular vote would eliminate the whole purpose of the electoral college, and essentially be the same thing as getting rid of the electoral college.

This is actually a good thing, since candidates will be forced to appeal to the majority of the states to win elections instead of only concentrating on the small handful of largely populated states like New York and California.

Out of all the previous 45 presidents we've had so far, up to Donald Trump in 2016, you pick just 4 examples where the electoral college allegedly gave "preferential treatment to one party over the other," and you only use examples of Republicans winning through the electoral college to justify removing the electoral college, and no examples of Democrats winning through the electoral college to justify removing it, which supports my theory that Democrats only want the electoral college gone because it hasn't worked in their favor this time.

 Where was the so-called "inherent and systemic bias" in those cases where those other presidents won those elections.

On top of all that, in one of your examples, the one involving Rutherford Birchard Hayes, you link to an article that says:

Samuel J. Tilden of New York outpolled Ohio's Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote, and had 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165, with 20 votes uncounted. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute: in three states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina), each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (as an "elected or appointed official") and replaced. The 20 disputed electoral votes were ultimately awarded to Hayes after a bitter legal and political battle, giving him the victory.

[...]

This has very little, if anything, to do with the electoral college itself. All that happened was that one person started off with more votes than another, and then someone or something messed up an addition 20 votes, so they ultimately made a deal to resolve the issue.

As for your example of Donald Trump winning due to the electoral college, this also does not show how or why the electoral college is bad. If anything, it only shows that the electoral college is doing what it was meant to do, by making it easier for a metaphorical doctor like Donald Trump to win elections, and harder for a candy-man to win elections.

In the case of our upcoming 2020 election, the "candy-man" in this case would be someone like Bernie Sanders.

As for the metaphorical doctor, Donald Trump, many of them will think "no! orange man bad! he not givin me free stuff! he building a big old wall! he deportin people! he talk bad bout mexico! he ending DACA! he hurt muh feelings! he tweet bad things! he grab women! he band muzlimz! he bomb da iranian general! he need to be impeeched!! why he not impeeeched!!??"

in 2004, President Obama stated that he supports abolishing the electoral college in a debate with Republican Alan Keyes. (Trujillo, 2012)

In 2000, Hilary Clinton stated: “We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College

In addition, President Trump himself in 2012 called the Electoral College "a disaster for a democracy".

the Founding Fathers were wrong to set up this undemocratic system.

A populist presidential candidate can still become President by way of promising things that are popular, but are bad for the nation.

There is also a strong argument that the Electoral College makes this problem worse. Populist candidates throughout the world make this promises of 'candy' to those that are economically deprived, victims of income inequality and victims of geographical disparities in wealth.

A nation can be both a democracy and a constitutional republic, as long as democracy is in the constitution which the republic is based on.

On the issue of the 1836 Presidential election, I was making the point that the Democratic Buren-Johnson ticket gained 50.8% of the popular vote in the election. However, aristocrats and party officials - who are unaccountable to the public - decided that he shouldn't be that Johnson shouldn't be the Vice President. (Hatfield, 1997)

Hatfield, M. O. (1997) shorturl.at/xIJR7

By my opponents logic, the electors should have been able to decide that they are too controversial to become President.

There is a strong argument from protecting small states from the tyranny of the majority, but the electoral college doesn't do this. (Hermens, 1958)

In the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump won seven of the 10 largest states, and Hillary Clinton won seven of the 12 smallest states. (Cohen, 2019)

This is because there has only been four cases in history where the person who won the popular vote did not win the presidency because of the electoral college. In every single one of these cases, the advantage went to the Republican Party. The Democrats have to get a resounding victory (as happened in the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections where Democrat President Obama won) - as any close race will more than likely go Republican.

An academic study by the National Bureau of Economic Research with the University of Texas found that “Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.” (Geruso et. al., 2019)

This means whenever the popular vote is very close, the Republicans are very likely to be handed the Presidency over the Democrats.

Throughout the history of the Electoral College, has "at various times, given an advantage to Democrats, Republicans, and the now-defunct Whig Party."  and changes over time due to population changes, demographic changes throughout states and even the addition of new states. However, at this point in history, "it gives a clear advantage to Republicans." (Millhiser, 2019)

Whenever there is questions over who won, the Republicans seem to come out on top.

This happened similarly 123 years later in Bush v. Gore.

he would very much be the 'candyman' from his promises to "make Mexico reimburse the United States for the full cost of the border wall" or "expand the economy 4 percent a year" (Kessler, 2020)

He promised the simply not deliverable - and these promises were broken.

 if Senator Sanders was to win the Democratic nomination, both him and Trump would be the 'candy-man'.

Sanders would be a much better President than Trump

Trump should be impeached and removed from office for the crimes he committed.

The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!

It would have been much easier for me to win the so-called popular vote than the Electoral College in that I would only campaign in 3 or 4--

Campaigning to win the Electoral College is much more difficult & sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!

So he shows that he actually understands how the electoral college changes things for the better, and makes it more challenging and exciting to win elections, since you must focus on the majority of the states, even the smaller ones.

PoliceSheep: A populist presidential candidate can still become President by way of promising things that are popular, but are bad for the nation.

Christen: Yes, but the key thing here is that it will be harder for that to happen, not impossible.

That doesn't mean our elections and electoral college have to be democratic.

The electoral college does not "make this problem worse". People in America who come from socialist countries, like Venezuela and Cuba, won't vote for socialism since they know how it has destroyed and/or ruined their homelands. They won't vote for a socialist candy-man like Bernie Sanders.

Other people who won't vote for Bernie include people who know how harmful it is to raise the minimum wage so much and make all of these things "free" by declaring them human rights, both of which Bernie promises to do, if elected. These people who are against these things may be living in the smaller states. The electoral college ensures that these states cannot be ignored that easily.

Wait, did any of the electors actually decide that any of them were too controversial to be president? If so, was there anyone else they could have voted for? If so, did they vote for them instead, or were they not allowed to let their votes go to waste, and voted for someone anyways?

This one wasn't properly cited. I could not find it in your list of works cited.

This still does not explain the so-called "preferential treatment" caused by the electoral college.

That may be because those republicans who won the electoral college but lost the popular vote were metaphorical doctors, and their opponents were candy-men, or at least controversial to the point where a lot of people were not supporting them.

Yes, and that's why you people now want it gone, because it favored Donald Trump

After doing another google search on "why did al gore lose," I came across this: http://archive.ph/MYYYg

Because Gore ran a very poor campaign (and Bush ran a very good campaign).

This source is also charging me a dollar to access it: https://i.imgur.com/5uo6tTo.png

No. He himself stated that Mexico was helping pay for the wall through what is known as "the new USMCA Trade Deal."

Plus, this website documents the progress of the border wall: https://www.trumpwall.construction/

He has given this country what it needs - better security, and overall improvement.

If this is true, why is there such a need to remove the electoral college? Just keep it, and Sanders will still win since he is "much better".

He was found to be not guilty.

Most politicians do what is in their own self-interest.

The electoral college overwhelmingly benefits the Republican Party at the moment.

Among them, 81% of Democrats support the abolition and around 33% of Republicans back the change.

President Trump has insulted the electoral college in 2012

The electoral college does not ensure that smaller states are focused on in Presidential Elections - just that swing states get attention. "The 2016 candidates spent almost all their time in a handful of states, most of them medium or large. Two-thirds of campaign events happened in just six states — Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan. If we include Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona, then those 12 states account for 96 percent of campaign events. The nine smallest states (including D.C.), meanwhile, got precisely zero attention."

Small states like Wyoming, Rhode Island, D.C., New Jersey, Montana and Vermont received not a single campaign event from Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump in 2016.

PoliceSheep: A populist presidential candidate can still become President by way of promising things that are popular, but are bad for the nation.

Christen: Yes, but the key thing here is that it will be harder for that to happen, not impossible.

The electoral college actually makes it easier, as candidates can focus on just Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan to have a successful shot at the presidency.

Sanders has always said he supports democratic socialism, not a socialist dictatorship.

His policies are not even that socialist. They are more in line with those implemented in Nordic countries like Denmark and Norway.

Having an undemocratic system is unacceptable

they have an ad-blocker enabled. Here is an archived version for their convenience

a phone conversation with Mexico’s president on the 27th January 2017, a transcript of which was provided to The Washington Post and published Aug. 3

This comes from the President's misguided understanding of what a trade deficit is. [13]

I too have refuted examples that Pro listed of the electoral college supposedly favoring republicans [including] the 1876 election where I stated that the republicans "came out on top" because they made a deal where they had to sacrifice something to come out on top[.]

 "it only shows that the electoral college is doing what it was meant to do, by making it easier for a metaphorical doctor like Donald Trump to win elections, and harder for a candy-man to win elections."

Grover Cleveland lost because too many people were against his policy regarding tariff reduction, he did not campaign well enough to appeal to the majority of the states, he made many people upset, and lost states that he would have otherwise won because of this.

First of all, I don't know what you mean by "at the moment." The electoral college didn't just one day magically spring to life and then start picking and choosing republicans to benefit, especially after years of benefiting a democrat like Barack Obama.

Among who, exactly? Because I was never asked if I would be okay with this, and neither were any of my friends or family members. I also doubt that any of the people within my local community, or any of their friends or relatives, were asked about this, so are you sure that every democrat and every republican in America was asked if they were okay with this, and 81% and 33% of them said they were okay with it, respectively, or what this just a random poll/survey where a couple hundred people were asked if they would be okay with this, and then that percent of each of those groups of people said they were okay with it, and then it was assumed that this was what every American thinks based on this random 9-year old poll/survey?

First of all, yes, "swing states" can and will always exist, and will always get attention, with or without the electoral college

[The Electoral College] ensures that the top 1 or 2 most populated states like New York and California do not end up deciding just about every election.

Donald Trump probably didn't feel any need to campaign in that state since he knew they would vote for him regardless, and he probably didn't see the point in bothering with New Jersey either since he figured they would never vote for him. The opposite holds true for Hillary Clinton, where she must have figured that, regardless, New Jersey and Wyoming would vote for her and would not vote for her, respectively.

Keep in mind that running presidential campaigns usually cost, per campaign, several days and thousands of dollars, and in 2016, there were over 300 presidential campaigns. Not every candidate will have the time and money needed to campaign in all 50 states. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have already spent at least 1.4 billion and 957.6 million, respectively, and hundreds of days, campaigning in the states that they campaigned in. Continuing to campaign in all of the other remaining states that they did not campaign in just so every state can have some kind of campaign in it would likely have costed them at least twice that amount of time and money, which they didn't have.

Abolishing the electoral college would make this even easier than keeping the electoral college, as metaphorical candy-man candidates like Bernie Sanders will then be able to focus on the top 2 or 3 most populated states like New York and California, and continue to promise more and more free stuff in those areas all the way to victory. With the electoral college however, many more states have to be focused on, not just the top 1 or 2 most populated ones that desire free stuff.

PoliceSheep: Sanders has always said he supports democratic socialism, not a socialist dictatorship. His policies are not even that socialist. They are more in line with those implemented in Nordic countries like Denmark and Norway.

Christen: First of all, those countries are not socialist, nor can they be used as role models for the United States, or as proof that socialism works.

It's "unacceptable" to democrats because it didn't work in their favor this time.

It still charges me money to view it, even through the archived version.

It's charging me 29 dollars to view this one.

It's charging me $15.99 to view this.

He references the Supreme Court decision of 2000 that stopped the re-counts in polling districts in Flordia. He goes on to argue that this then cannot be an example of bias in favour of the Republican Party as it was based on legal interpretation of the constitution and not specifically the electoral college. However, there is a part of the electoral college system that caused this. Winner takes all means that a states electoral votes are all allocated to the candidate with the most votes in that state.

After the 1876 election,a special electoral commission made up of congressmen and Supreme Court justices decided the outcome of this election. The vote was 8-7 along party lines. The bias came in that the commission had more Republicans on it than Democrats.

it would be beneficial for my opponent to provide a specific definition of the terms 'doctor' and 'candy-man' outside of an analogy

There is no evidence to support the fact this influenced many voters.

Grover Cleveland lost because too many people were against his policy regarding tariff reduction, he did not campaign well enough to appeal to the majority of the states, he made many people upset, and lost states that he would have otherwise won because of this.

To argue more people were against his tariff policy is ludicrous. Benjamin Harrison only received 5,443,633 votes whereas Grover Cleveland received

5,538,163 votes. If he had unpopular policies, he would not have won the popular vote.

When President Obama won the 2008 and 2012 elections, there was still systematic bias against him - he just had to overcome this. The electoral college did not benefit Barack Obama.

To answer the specific issues raised about this study, the study was of 12,638 U.S. adults.

However, it must be noted, the argument that a poll cannot be representative if it doesn't include them and their families is ludicrous!

Without the electoral college, there would be no 'Winner Takes All' and therefore there would be no 'state vote' to swing.

he did this before being the official Republican nominee. My counting of campaign events were only done to both candidates after they officially became the party nominee. For President Trump, this happened on 22nd July 2016

No state should be seen as 'safe' and any electoral system should attempt to make candidates care about the needs of every state in the union, not just states that add up to 270 electoral votes.

They could have not done a few of those and spread them out across the states that got no attention such as Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, New York, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Massachusetts and Maryland.

I clearly pointed out that his specific policies were NOT socialist and in fact more like the social democracies of "Nordic countries like Denmark and Norway."

My opponent needs to turn off view it, however, for ease, I have copied it into this pastebin.

I truly don't understand why it is asking my opponent to pay here as I access it without any pop-ups even suggesting payment required. I have also copied this source into a pastebin.

You do not explain exactly how Winner Takes All "caused" the supreme court to make this decision that they made, and neither did your source. All you did was explain Winner Takes All, and then claim that it "is anti-democratic".

This still does not justify getting rid of the electoral college for 3 reasons.

1. I agree that the failure of the provisions of the 12th Amendment should not be blamed on the electoral college and my argument does not support that claim
   
2. Again, the creation of the electoral commission itself is not a fault of the electoral college. The fact there were more Republicans on the commission than Democrats is the source of the bias.
   
3. I also agree that this is a very undocumented event that it is difficult to say for certainty what happened in detail.
   

 "it only shows that the electoral college is doing what it was meant to do, by making it easier for a metaphorical doctor like Donald Trump to win elections, and harder for a candy-man to win elections."

Doctors are experienced people who determine what certain problems are (such as a sickness) and recommend and give things that may feel painful (such as needles in your arm or bad-tasting medicine) but will ultimately help you in the long run.

Diane Hessan, who had been hired by the Clinton campaign to track undecided voters, wrote in The Boston Globe that "all hell broke loose" after the "basket of deplorables" comment, which prompted what she saw as the largest shift of undecided voters towards Trump.[36] Political scientist Charles Murray said, in a post-election interview with Sam Harris, that because the comment helped get Donald Trump elected, Murray agreed with Jonathan Haidt that it had "changed the history of the world, and he [Haidt] may very well be right. That one comment by itself may have swung enough votes

I argued that "too many people" were against this policy, not "more people". By "too many people" I am referring to the people in those then red states that did not vote for him.

That does not sound like "systemic bias" to me, especially since he even won the popular vote in both of those elections!

Claiming that there was systemic bias when someone won the electoral college but lost the popular vote is one thing, but no way can you claim that there was any systemic bias there when the man won both electoral college and popular vote in both of those elections, and by that much.

• Faithless electors
  
• Misrepresentation
  

My opponent seems to believe I am making points that I am not based on my sources. To say that my argument does not justify getting rid of the electoral college is only true with the Strawman

I agree that the failure of the provisions of the 12th Amendment should not be blamed on the electoral college and my argument does not support that claim

I also agree that this is a very undocumented event that it is difficult to say for certainty what happened in detail.

The fact there were more Republicans on the commission than Democrats is the source of the bias.

My opponent has failed to show how the electoral college system "mak[es] it easier" for an "experienced [person]" that will provide policies that "will ultimately help you in the long run" but seem negative from the outlook. My opponent simply states in his subjective view that he believes President Donald Trump to meet his definition of a "Doctor" and Sen. Bernie Sanders as a "Candyman".

a candidate could have the worst policy in American history and still deserve to be President if they had the most people voting for them. To believe otherwise is anti-democratic

For example, Hiram Rhodes Revels - the first African American Senator - had to face systematic bias to get elected.

I have set out proof of this multiple times throughout this debate to which no credible critique has been offered.

My opponent then goes on to criticise the very concept of representative sampling - yet another concept they fail to understand. There are margins of error, naturally, but to suggest the argument 'I wasn't asked therefore it's wrong' is ludicrous. I suggest my opponent reads this Pew Research Center article explaining the basic concepts.

My opponent has failed to give a sufficient or credible rebuttal against:

Faithless electors

Misrepresentation

my opponent has failed to defend the electoral college from the charge of being anti-democratic

In terms of voting for this debate, it is clear I have better arguments

It's clear my opponent is driven by a partisan aim