Instigator / Pro
11
1551
rating
26
debates
57.69%
won
Topic
#2967
The Electoral College should be abolished
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
fauxlaw
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Description
Definitions:
ELECTORAL COLLEGE: The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, which forms every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States
ABOLISHED: Formally put an end to.
Burden of Proof: Shared
PRO must prove why it should be abolished.
CON must prove why the system should stay.
I will be using my first argument from a previous debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1798-the-electoral-college-should-be-abolished)
Round 1
I look forward to this debate and I thank my opponent for accepting.
Preamble
Motion
The Electoral College should be abolished.
Burdon of Proof
PRO (PoliceSheep) has the burden of proof to provide evidence that abolishing the Electoral College would be good for America and to argue against the evidence to the contry provided by CON.
CON has the burden to either disprove my evidence and claims and to give evidence and reason often as to why abolishing the Electoral College would be bad or both.
Definitions
Electoral College - "The Electoral College is a body of electors established by the United States Constitution, constituted every four years for the sole purpose of electing the president and vice president of the United States. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors, and an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes is required to win an election." [1]
Faithless voter - An elector of the U.S. Electoral College voted or attempted to vote for a candidate different from whom they were pledged.
Abolish - formally put an end to [6]
Arguments
Faithless Electors
The electors are selected by state leaders of political parties, making the whole system undemocratic and non-transparent which are two things nobody should want in a Presidential election. [3] 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, "no elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged." [3] In 24 states, there isn't even a state law prohibiting it. [7]
There has been 217 instances of faithless voting since the implementation of the electoral college. [4] This has also had an effect on the result of elections. 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. [5] From this dreadful constitutional clause, the entire presidency is decided by unaccountable people.
Misrepresentation
What many supporters see as its key benefit is actually a key flaw. The mismatch between population and the number of electoral votes is harmful to American democracy. 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).
The electoral college does not ensure that smaller states are focused on in Presidential Elections - just that swing states get attention. "The 2016 candidates [calculated from the date of accepted their respective parties nominee] 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."
Benefit to the Republican Party
The Electoral College results versus the popular vote has given us three elections where the President is someone who the majority of people voted for another candidate, a Democrat. This system has an inherent and systematic bias giving preferential treatment to one party over the other due to the demographics of Republican voters. This has huge implications. It has happened four times in Presidential history, each one a member of the Republican Party. This is beyond coincidence.
1) 1876 - Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) [9]
2) 1888 - Benjamin Harrison (Republican) [10]
3) 2000 - George W. Bush (Republican) [10]
4) 2016 - Donald Trump (Republican) [11]
Sources
Resolution: The Electoral College should be abolished
I Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Faithless Electors
I.a Pro’s R1 argument re: faithless electors cites the National Archives,[1] but then misrepresents what the Archives say regarding the elector selection process by State party leaders, claiming that “The electors are selected by state leaders of political parties, making the whole system undemocratic and non-transparent…” as if only by State party officials choice of electors appointed or seated. Pro’s misrepresentation is that this is not the only method by which electors are appointed/seated, while it does represent how most potential electors are slated, i.e., added to a list of Electoral College [hereafter, “EC” for brevity] candidates, from whom electors are actually seated by means from direct election by voters, and several other methods not mentioned by Pro. Pro’s own source, cited above, declares the slating/seating process as a two-part process, of which Pro only highlights the first part; the slate of potential ECs. The unmentioned second part is that in every state, the citizens’ vote for President determines which slate of electors the people [not the Party] elect.[2]
I.a.1 Actually, lest one be accused of dropping an argument, I mention that Pro really began with a moderately popular television series, Adam Ruins Everything,[3] a three-season comedy series woefully masking the effort of a “serious quest to reveal the hidden truths behind everything you know and love,”[4] such as season 1, episode 7, “Voting,”meaning the Electoral College. Except that Mr. Conover, the comedian and series creator, forgets the interrupt as explained in 1.a, above. Well, that’s easy to do when youth is a factor. Conover, born in 1983, can barely remember Bill Clinton, who managed to win a Presidential election in 1992 with less than half the popular vote, 43%,[5] therefore winning his election solely by virtue of… the Electoral College!
I.a.2 Apparently, according to Conover, “everything” amounts to 65 items of hidden truths; he personally cancelled the series after that count, including a truncated third season. I’m sure there’s more in hiding than that, but, being a writer myself, I well know creative juices can dry up. But, experience, and aging, has taught me that one does not argue for one’s limitations and expect to slay them because we own them and can only dispense with limitations by facing the mirror, pointing at that person and saying, “Not today.” It’s a choice. Leave it at that. The Constitution of the United States has endured for 233 seasons, and the Electoral College in its current form for 217 years, and counting; something Hollowood [my preferred spelling] has yet to achieve by either count.
I.a.3 Further, according to Pro, citing the series, Adam…,[6] season 1, episode 7, “in 24 states, there isn’t even a state law prohibiting it” [faithless voting]. Rebuttal: according to FairVote.org,[7] the claim fails:
1. No penalty 16 states
2. No penalty, vote cancelled 12 states
3. Penalty 3 states
4. Penalty, vote cancelled 2 states
5. No faithless elector law 17 states
I.b Pro further states that faithless electors [electors who do not vote as pledged] have voted faithlessly on 217 occasions, and that four presidential elections have been thus affected by the faithless electors. This will be discussed further on in III, below.
I.c What Pro ignores in his complaint of faithless electors is how the various States differ in their response to faithless elector regulation. Some states have no penalty, others have a variety of penalties.[8] Bottom line, in Chiafalo v. Washington [2020], the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that States are free to determine regulation of faithless voting independently.[9] Pro, along with Conover, laments that there is not a federal law to regulate voting. That's because the Constitution stipulated that voting for President and Vice President is not a national, collective election, but State by State, and their respective regulations are thus legislated.[10] That is not a Conover hidden truth, so near and dear to his heart. It helps to read the Constitution occasionally. Maybe that's why Adam Ruins Everything only ruined things for two and one half seasons. I read the Constitution once a month, by personal commitment, and have for the past ten years. I'm barely scratching the surface.
I.d In summary, in 33 states, there are faithless voter laws [1 – 4]; in 17, there are none [5]. But all that is not even addressing the point of the effect of faitheless voters. The point is given in Pro’s own source:[11] “Through the 2020 election, there have been a total of 165[3][4] instances of faithlessness. They have never swung an election,[4] and nearly all have voted for third party candidates or non-candidates, as opposed to switching their support to a major opposing candidate.” So, “where’s Conover's ruin?” As Shakespeare said, "Much ado about nothing."
II Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Misrepresentation
II.a Pro alleges that the Electoral College misrepresents the populations of States in Presidential elections, claiming that it “gives one’s WY vote the power of three CA’s.” Merely a review of the relative populations of those states refutes this claim. According to Pro’s 2010 Census State tally,[12] CA, the most populous State, has 37.3M, and 53 EC members, whereas WY has 0.56M, and 3 EC members; a population ratio of 66.6:1, and an EC ratio of 17.7:1. Granted, this is a total count of residents, not voters, but each State’s representative count [Senators plus Representatives] represent all State citizens, not just voters. Pro’s source states that from the 2010 Census, each U.S. district population averaged 710,000 [rounded], and that this number tripled the apportionment of representatives from the 1910 Census. Was this Pro’s source for his claim of WY having a 3:1 advantage as noted above? And note that the ratio favors CA, not WY, in any event. Pro is comparing apples and oranges, and based on the 1910 estimate of apportionment, the fruit has long since rotted.
II.b The whole point of the stroke of genius of the Electoral College created by the Founding Fathers[13] was that it evenly apportioned government representation of legislators according to the general population of the people in each State, thus equalizing the Electoral College count among all States, expressly preventing States of large population from overwhelming smaller States in Presidential elections, which were never intended to be general national population elections, but State by State, and clarified by the earlier reference [R1, [4]] to the Constitution. This fully refutes Pro’s 3:1 claimed ratio advantage had by WY over CA, or, for that matter, CA over WY, or any large state over any small state. By democratic representation, such as established by the U.S. Constitution in 1788, of now 538 electors spread over the United States by direct linkage to State populations, we elect Presidents and Vice Presidents. We are not a United State of America, but a uniquely composed democratic republic, the United Statesof America, 50 separate, distinct States united to a common purpose of freedom and justice, for the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each individual counted in those States.
III Rebuttal: Pro’s R1: Benefit to the Republican Party
III.a Re-read the above II.b rebuttal in its entirety; there was never any consideration, constitutionally, for a Presidential election by a nationwide count of votes, but, rather, State-by-State. This is a clear distinction that is lost to history due to our modern media proclivity to count votes on a nationwide basis. A short trip into the recent past, to just before my own birth, in the Truman/Dewey election of 1948, should settle the matter. The election was on Nov 2, 1948. The iconic photo of Truman[14] holding an early Nov 4 edition of the Chicago Tribune shows a smiling, virtually laughing Truman in spite of the newspaper’s incorrect predication of a Dewey win. One need only look at the electoral map of that year to understand why the Trib got it wrong; they were looking at results of the northeastern States, the first to be tabulated, which, but for MA, all went to Dewey. Two days later, and the media still couldn’t get the count right. Truman won, 303 electoral college votes, and 26 of 48 States. However, looking at Pro’s preferred popular vote, Truman took less than half, 49.6% of the popular vote, due to the entry of a third-party candidate; a southern “Democrat” defecting from his party to run as a “Dixiecrat,” securing 2.4% of the vote.[15]
III.b Pro mentions the “demographics of Republican voters,” ignoring that one can also view the demographics of Democrat voters, which any politically demographic map of the U.S. demonstrates the congregation of Democrats around population centers of the big cities, and Republicans occupying a greater land mass of the U.S. generally. So what? Their respective counts, the whole point of registering votes, after all, are approximately equal, given the results of past elections with few exceptions. Don’t most political polls represent us, the American public, as roughly a politically demographic in thirds; Ds, Rs, and Is?[16]
III.b.1 Looking at a map of the geographic center of the United States by population, unpoliticized, we see that it has consistently moved westward from 1790, when it was near the upward reach of the Chesapeake Bay, in MD near the DE border, to just north of the confluence of the IN/IL/KY borders, in IL on the latitude of Chicago in 1948, where the Tribune erroneously called the election.[17]
III.b.2 I thought it would be interesting to view a map of the United States by geographic center of Democrats, and one of Republicans, such as the geographic population center of the country as referenced above [R1, [16]] as separate mapping demographics, but I could not find examples online. An open challenge that may come to no benefit, anyway, relative to voting.
III.c By the way, Bill Clinton, a Democrat elected in 1992, also failed to reach a popular vote majority, as mentioned above, but few news outlets will acknowledge it. The bias of the modern media? You decide. Are we still so certain that only Republicans gain advantage by the Electoral College, since we also observed previously that Truman’s 1948 election was a similar exercise of diversion from Pro’s claim of Republican exclusivity?
IV Argument: a Constitutional Amendment is required
IV.a Let us recall a minor interrupt in Pro’s Resolution, because to accomplish the abolishment of the Electoral College will require more than a simple act of Congress, let alone a Presidential EO. No, the “Electoral College” as now conceived was not established by the first ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788, although the methodology was included in that 1788 ratification. A short 16 years later, 1804, when 62% of the 39 men who ratified the Constitution were still alive, including James Madison [who was Sec’ty of State at the time], the 12thAmendment was ratified, officially establishing the Electoral College as the means by which Presidents would, thereafter, be elected.[18], [19] To abolish the College now requires a Constitutional Amendment to be proposed, passed by 75% of both houses of Congress, and ratified by 75% of the States. It is not an easy road. It was never guaranteed to be easy; just worth it.
Having dismantled Pro's R1, I pass round 2 to Pro.
[2]ibid
[4]ibid
[10]U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, 3
[13]U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, 3
[14]https://www.chicagotribune.com/featured/sns-dewey-defeats-truman-1942-20201031-5kkw5lpdavejpf4mx5k2pr7trm-story.html
[17]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_center_of_the_United_States_population#/media/File:US_Mean_Center_of_Population_1790-2010.PNG
[18]U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, 3
Round 2
Forfeited
Resolution: The Electoral College should be abolished
IV My arguments/rebuttals I – III: in R1.
V Rebuttal: Opponent forfeiture
V.a Due to my opponent’s forfeit of round 2, I have naught to rebut. I will proceed with defense and argument.
VI Defense: my R1 rebuttal: Pro’s R1, R2 Benefit to Republican Party
VI.a Pro’s entire argument of the E.C.’s exclusive benefit to the Republican party was dismantled in my R1 rebuttal that there have been at least two Presidential elections, in 1948 [Truman], and 1992 [Clinton] in which the election of these Democrat Presidents did not achieve a majority vote, which is also demonstrated to be an illegitimate measure of election success for Presidential elections, and was, therefore, determined by the appropriate, constitutional election method: by E.C.
VI.b Further, to dismantle the Pro argument, there need be but one example of a Democrat who was properly elected by the E.C., but who lost the popular vote. There may be more than two examples [I have not, and need not research further], but I need no further proof of my rebuttal success. Therefore, Pro’s argument that only Republicans benefit by the E.C. fails and is concluded.
VII Argument: The Electoral College is a greater distribution of votes across the States than by nationwide popular vote, even when counted by State
VII.a I will demonstrate that it actually requires the votes of more States [the largest constitutional common denominator of Presidential elections] to elect a President by the E.C. than it does to elect a President by nationwide popular vote, thus proving the overall suitability of the E.C. election method.
VII.a.1 It was demonstrated in my R1, II.a that the E.C. election method equalizes every congressional district to a population [by the 2010 census] of approx. 710,000 citizens, each, thus equalizing the vote across each State in its entire population. That such equalization may not also represent an equalization of voters in each district is not the fault of the E.C., because that condition also affects the general population of registered voters even in a condition of a nationwide popular vote method, let alone State by State.
VII.b Disclaimer: It is claimed that by popular vote, a President can be elected by as few as five of the most populated States, assuming the first five populous States would, in fact, vote for the same candidate. However, past elections have demonstrated that even though we refer to States as red [Republican] or blue [Democrat], not all voters in any given State have ever voted as a single block for one or the other major candidate. The first five most populous States, in order of population are:[1]
1. CA 39,368,076
2. TX 29,360,729
3. FL 21,733,312
4. NY 19,336,776
5. PA 12,783,254
Total: 122,582,147
VI.b.1 Therefore, given election totals in the 2016 Presidential election, and assuming that an elected candidate would need at least half of the total population to win, it might be possible, but unlikely, that the first five most populated States could elect the next President. In 2106, the total number of voters was something over 127M voters.[2]
VII.b.2 However, the entire population does not vote. In fact, as noted above, VII.b.1, in the 2016 election, there were only 250M registered voters, and only 51% of them [127M] bothered to vote. That election required many more States’ votes than five to elect the President by popular vote. In fact, data shows that it required more of the least populated States to elect the President in 2016 by the E.C, than most populated States would have by popular vote. See the following:
VII.c This chart[3] demonstrates the 2016 Presidential election, by State, in order of the least populated States in ascending order, least populated first [WY], assuming an E.C. vote method [left side: “electoralist”]. Another chart demonstrates the order of the most populated States in descending order, most populated first [CA], assuming a popular vote method [right side: “populist”]. Source of data for chart [3] is[4]
VII.c.1 Observe that the E.C vote in 2016 required a total of 40 States, in order, WY through FL, to achieve the excess of 270 electoral votes for President Trump by the least populated states in order from least populated [WY].
VII.c.2 Conversely, in 2016, it required the election in 23 States, in order, CA through SC, to achieve a sufficient popular vote count of 65M plus to collect more votes by Candidate Clinton to defeat Trump’s accrued votes by popular vote the election process, listed from most populated State [CA].
VII.c.3 It is easy to see that vote by E.C. required more States’ votes to elect the president [40 States] than it would by popular vote [23 States] to elect the President. Therefore, the E.C. election method is more representative of a greater number of States than by the popular vote method. Isn’t the E.C., therefore, a more truly representative election method by we the people of the United States?
I conclude R2 and pass R3 to Pro.
Round 3
Forfeited
Resolution: The Electoral College should be abolished
VIII My arguments/rebuttals I – III: in R1.
IX My arguments/rebuttals/defenses IV – VII: in R2.
IX.a To summarize at this point, Pro suggested in R1 that his BoP was to demonstrate “…evidence that abolishing the Electoral College would be good for America and to argue against the evidence to the contry provided by CON.”
IX.a.1 Pro then gave three argument points:
1. Faithless electors,
2. Misrepresentation,
3. Benefit to the Republican party.
IX.a.2 My rebuttals to all three Pro arguments were contained in my R1 and R2, as noted above in VIII & IX. Pro has not responded since with either defense of these three Pro arguments, nor rebuttal of my R1 and R2 arguments. They stand as argued and dropped by Pro.
IX.b Pro has now forfeited R3. Having rebutted Pro’s arguments of R1 in my R1 and R2, and with the following two rounds forfeited by Pro without new argument, nor defense, nor rebuttal from Pro, I will proceed to my R3, and last, round of argument:
X R3 Argument: The Constitutional purpose of the Electoral College
X.a I have a personal imposition of not offering argument in the last round, and I never allow it as Instigator of a debate, regardless of my being Pro or Con. Although as Instigator, Pro has not prohibited last-round argument, in my position as Contender, it seems to me disingenuous to offer new argument in the last round to which my opponent cannot respond. Therefore, this will be my last round of argument, and I will desist in R4, leaving that round for rebuttal and defense, only, if needed. Pro may do as pleased in R4 since I will have the last rebuttal opportunity.
X.b I entered argument in R1 that the Electoral College is established by constitutional decree, and that, as such, it cannot be abolished but by amendment to the Constitution. Ordinary congressional legislation will not suffice. Therefore, as this restriction is constitutionally sound without defense nor rebuttal from Pro, the Resolution is defeated to date.
X.b.1 In R2, I argued that by the E.C., there is a greater distribution of States’ votes to elect the President than by national, popular vote, thus demonstrating that the E.C. method is the more fully representative voting method. Pro has yet to successfully provide the evidence to support his BoP as quoted above in IX.a, therefore, the Resolution to abolish the E.C. in favor of initiating a national, popular vote is defeated.
X.c My first argument for R3 is this: The original constitutional debate over the appropriate method to elect the President and Vice President was settled by ratification in 1788. The described purpose of the Electoral College was offered by Pro by his source [5], the National Archives,[1]. but he did not use that source for the purpose I’ve described here by argument title. That source said:
X.c.1“The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”
“Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.”[2]
X.c.1.A Thus, by this statement by the National Archives, Pro’s own source supports my first two arguments; those of R1 and R2. Therefore, my BoP, with more certainty than it supports my opponent’s BoP, prevails.
X.c.1.B We must recall that at the time of the Constitution’s composition and ratification in 1788, the Constitution established by Article I that although the House membership was elected directly by the people,[3] the Senate was populated by people elected by their respective State Legislators, 2 Senators per State, and not by the qualified populace at large.[4]
X.c.2 The election of George Washington in 1788-1789 [the election was in late December, extending over 27 days continuing into 1789] was fully determined by E.C. vote. There were then 15 States [ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, VA, NC, SC, GA], but 3 States [VT, RI, NC, bolded for emphasis] had not yet ratified the Constitution [ratified in September of 1788 by a sufficient number of States to initiate its official use], and were, therefore, ineligible to vote. Further, NY [underlined for emphasis] failed to seat their electors in time to vote. There were then in total, 79 electors from 11 States; 57 representing House members, and 22 representing Senate members. Of the 79 total electors, 39 were required to carry the election. George Washington collected 69 votes, thus winning the first Presidential election.[5]
X.d It must be noted that of the 11 voting states, four of them [CT, GA, NJ, SC], making 36% of the electing States, did not register popular votes, and, in fact, did not conduct popular voting.[6]
X.e It should also be noted that the election of Senators was altered from State legislature vote [per Article I, section 3, US Constitution] to each State by popular vote by ratification of the 17thAmendment in 1913.[7]
X.f Therefore, having completed the first Presidential election of George Washington “by the book,” the second, re-electing Washington, was conducted exactly like unto it in 1792, as was the third quadrennial election in 1796, electing John Adams, and the fourth in 1800, electing Thomas Jefferson. Not in all four first presidential elections was the popular vote a deciding factor even though by then, State-by-State popular voting was counted in all States. With the 12th Amendment ratified in time [1803] to conduct E.C. voting by its altered precepts, Jefferson was re-elected in 1804.[8]
X.f.1 One major change by the 17A provided for a “contingent election” by vote of the House of Representative should no presidential candidate win a majority of E.C. votes.[9]
All quadrennial presidential elections since, through 2020, have been conducted without consequence with the exceptions of the elections of 1824 and 1838, when the “contingent election” clause of the 12thAmendment was employed. In spite of the confusion of the 2020 presidential election, all features of Article I, sections 2 and 3, and the 12thAmendment followed respective procedures, including the handling of objections to the E.C. vote, raised by some members of Congress. Therefore, the election process by the Electoral College was maintained without exception in 2020.
XI R3 Argument: The repeated attempts to abolish the E.C.
XI.a Some may feel the attempt to abolish the E.C. is a recent phenomenon; perhaps with the loss of the presidential election by Hillary Clinton in 2016, or perhaps further back with the loss of the presidential election by Al Gore in 2000. No, the effort to abolish the E.C. is much older than that.
XI.b There have been roughly 700 historic attempts to abolish the Electoral College.[10] Some have sought to do so by the appropriate process of constitutional amendment, but these, and all other attempts have failed. A win/loss of 0-700 [approx..] does not speak well to the valid justification to abolish the E.C. No doubt, it is a controversial subject. However, it is controversy only for the Pro-side of abolishment. Those opposed to abolishment bathe peacefully in the constitutional sunshine.
XII R3 Argument: The term ‘Electoral College’ is not in the Constitution
XII.a My argument opposes this claim, not because the claim is not true; I acknowledge that it is. The term does not exist in the 12thAmendment, either. However, in both documents, the latter being understood as entirely inclusive in the U.S. Constitution, the term “electors,” which does have constitutional presence, is clearly defined as a select body of citizens of the United States which exist as a temporary collection of people for the express purpose of electing the President and Vice President on a quadrennial basis. That body possesses no other purpose.
XII.b The OED defines “college” as “1. An organized society of persons performing certain common functions and possessing special rights and privileges; a body of colleagues, a guild, fellowship, association:” This happens to be the word’s first definition, saying nothing of its specific purpose as an educational institution of higher learning, the definition with which we are definitively more familiar, and which occurs further down the list of definitions of the word in the OED.
XVIII.b.1 So, taken by the first definition, “An organized society of persons,” that adequately describes the organization of “electors,” does it not? Further, the E.C. meets the following qualifier, “performing certain common functions,” i.e. all electors are commonly assembled, by State, to elect a President and Vice President. That function concluded, the “college” is then disassembled, and will reassemble, by constitutional edict, in the following quadrennial election, as elected by the people.
XII.c If Pro’s argument [to date not brought to bear] is that because the term “Electoral College” is not mentioned in the Constitution, then it should not be called such, let us ask why, when the term “separation of church and state” is not specific constitutional language of the First Amendment, yet we interpret it by Supreme Court precedent by Everson v. Board of Education [1947][11] as if it does? Should we abolish the consequences of this SCOTUS precedent?
XII.d Further, when the term “right to privacy” became Supreme Court precedent by virtue of Roe v. Wade [1973],[12] do we note that this term, as well, finds no entry in constitutional language; not in any of the five Amendments on which the Court based their decision [nor anywhere else in the Constitution, including all Amendments]? Should we abolish the consequences of this precedent?
XII.e Finally, when the term “congressional investigation” is the first thought of proper action when U.S. Government appears to have mislaid its proper purposes, and in fact, has been engaged since 1792 against George Washington, and innumerable times since, sometimes with near-disastrous results, I challenge anyone to find the term enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. Should we abolish congressional investigations?
XII.f We do so at our peril. If we depended on constitutional language to define every jot and tittle of Government action, and citizen response, our dependence will grow weary, along with our patience. We need merely read the Preamble of the Constitution[13] to understand which organization is in charge, truly, and which is subservient. It begins, “We the People,” not “I the Government.” That says, effectively, that if We the People want to amend the Constitution, more of us have a representative voice in our States than in our Federal Government, purely because we, collectively, have more States’ legislators than we will ever have of congressional House and Senate members. We are a representative democratic republic of unified States. I choose the choice of States to ratify a constitutional amendment, not Congress, alone, particularly to pass new law by Amendment. Readers and voters: you decide which BoP has the greater offer of representation of all of us.
XIII Rebuttal: Pro’s R1 “Misrepresentation”
XIII.a Pro argued in R1 that the E.C. misrepresented State-by-State vote due to “The mismatch between population and the number of electoral votes is harmful to American democracy.” He cited two sources in support of the argument, which I rebutted in R1, I.c, II.a, II.b. Pro’s source [7] was a fictional TV series. I submit that Hollowood [spelling intentional] fiction is not the most reliable, scholastic source, and my reasons were adequately presented in R1, I.c. Pro’s source [R1, 8] offered a review of congressional district apportionment based on district population according to Census, but his baseline for disparity was a comparison to the 1910 Census; a mere 111 years ago. The populations of congressional districts have, indeed, grown since then, along with appropriate congressional representation.
XIII.a.1 Since the Constitution defined apportionment in Article I, section 2, clause 3, it established a representation district of one House Representative for every 30,000 citizens [then, male, only] in each State, and that process endured until passage and ratification of the XIV Amendment in 1868, which applied no numbered count of district population representation by Census.[14]
XIII.b Congress capped the number of House Representatives at 435, regardless of district population, by the Apportionment Act of 1911,[15] one year following the Census, which now stands at an average of 710,000 citizens [including women as of the 19thAmendment of 1919]. Therefore, every citizen in every State [and D.C.] in the U.S. is apportioned House representation, thus maintaining a fair and equal representation by E.C. standard.
XIII.b.2 Who decides in which State a given citizen will live? Or, what the State population ought to be? There is no absolutely singular, correct answer to either question for each State. Thus, the apparent disparity of apportionment as Pro conceives it, if there is one, is not by government mandate, but by individual choice. However, do we, then, ignore that State populations vary, and not just because of geographic size of any given State? After all, the smallest State, by size, RI, has a population approximately double that of the smallest State by population, WY. By ratio, the size of RI to WY is 0.01:1.0.[16] At the other end of the size/population scale, CA is by no means the largest State, yet it has the largest population. By ratio, size of RI to CA is 1:149. By population, RI to CA is approx. 1:39. What better way to render an equitable condition of variable State populations1[not to mention the added complexities of registered voter populations2, let alone actual voter populations3] such that no State has populations1, 2, 3 advantage?
XIII.c Therefore, Pro’s “misrepresentation” argument fails to support the Resolution.
XIV Rebuttal: ?
XIV.a As there are no new arguments from Pro, there is nothing further to rebut. I close my R3 and pass R4 of the debate to Pro, hoping a different conclusion of Pro’s final round will result.
[2]ibid
[3]U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 1
[4]U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1
[6]ibid
[10]https://www.procon.org/headlines/the-electoral-college-top-3-pros-and-cons/ This reference has a further citation [25]
[13]https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us
[15]ibid
Round 4
Forfeited
Resolution: The Electoral College should be abolished
X My arguments/rebuttals I – III: in R1.
IX My arguments/rebuttals/defenses IV – VII: in R2.
X My arguments/rebuttals/defenses VIII – IX in R3
X.1 I erred in my R3 numbering by referring to IX as XIV. Sorry, sue me. I’m not a Roman.
XI R4 Conclusion
XI.a Since my opponent has forfeited rounds 2, 3, & 4 of a 4-round debate, by virtue of the Voting Policy,[1] I declare victory in this debate, to wit [from the policy]: “Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture…”
XI.b I regret there has been no further argument beyond R1 from Pro, but I have enjoyed presenting my case that the Electoral College should not be abolished as the Resolution claims, but should be retained as the constitutionally appropriate and more fairly representative method to elect the President and Vice President of the United States into perpetuity. I have successfully argued the point in all available rounds while successfully rebutting Pro’s singular arguments in Pro’s R1. I declare Pro’s Resolution entirely defeated, and ask for your vote. Thank you.
Re" your #4, I'll take that under advisement because I really am passionate about the subject [can't you tell?] and would appreciate a robust debate from a contrary opponent. I get your hesitation, because it is, almost, a truism, but, there is certainly plenty of argument in favor of the abolishment, and, after all, it's not like an amendment to change the convention is impossible to make happen. So far, the efforts have been clumsy. Besides, the potential of an amendment takes it out of a truistic sense, I believe.
Thanks for voting. Good to see you back on board.
Thanks for voting, guys.
Thanks for voting
This wasn't my debate as initiator, although, I did challenge something like it a few months ago. It died without acceptance. But, being a constitutional matter, I was easily hooked. I disagree about the weird. And I may just try proposing it, after giving this one a rest. And, who knows, maybe my opponent will rise to the occasion for the last round...
I would've stopped after round 2. I think you should retry this debate against someone else. Not me. I find both sides very weird/hard to argue.
I fear for my opponent's abolished interest in this debate... any interest in somehow usurping it?
Ragnar, thoughts?
Just kidding to both of you. Just getting a little lonely out here. I'll plod on. One round to go.
I did not realize until responding to your friend request that you are British. I recognize and revere the foundation of our Constitution on the great legal tradition of Great Britain. My own ancestry, though deeply American [my first ancestor to arrive in America was in 1625, to Boston, from Scotland] is rooted there, and then France before the 12th century.
Anyway, I look forward to our debate.
if no one else takes this I may be interested.