Instigator / Pro
0
1600
rating
24
debates
72.92%
won
Topic
#5548
It is better for America to not have the electoral college and to elect the president directly.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1498
rating
32
debates
67.19%
won
Description
I recognize that I’m using vague words like, “better” so keep in mind that this is a standard debate. Neither side should have to prove that they are correct, because they can’t really. The goal is for each side to try and persuade some hypothetical person who is neutral on the topic, not to prove anything. It's technically a matter of opinion, so I just wanted to clarify that.
Round 1
Preface
I'm pretty sure that everyone who is going to be voting on this debate knows what the electoral college is, so I think I can skip past that part. For definitions, I don't think anyone will object to me using, "the system which the United States of America uses to elect its president". If my opponent wishes for me to provide a more specific definition, I will be open to that. If you don't know what the electoral college is, first of all you absolutely should if you're an American, but if you somehow still don't, or live in another country, you can do your own research. It's all in the constitution, so there shouldn't be any conflicting sources. Now, on with the debate.
Misrepresentation
I think it's pretty obvious that the main point of my argument is how the electoral college makes some votes count more than others. Most americans would agree that they want a fair democracy, right? But the electoral college makes it inherently unfair. If you live in one state, your vote counts more than others. For example, if you live in Wyoming, your vote counts for 4 times as much as a californian's! And if you live in Vermont, your vote is worth 3 texans votes! This is the opposite of a fair democracy. [2]
Winning with the Minority
The title just says it all for this one. Why should a candidate be able to win an election with a minority of the vote? This has happened 5 times over the course of American history, which might not seem like a lot, but the fact that it has happened ANY times is a crime. Fun fact: it is possible to win the electoral college. with just under 22% of the popular vote. Sure, it is unlikely to happen, but we shouldn't have a system that allows it to happen anyways! [2]
Winner Takes All
This is one of the worst parts about our voting system in america. When someone wins a majority of votes in a state, they win all of that state's electoral votes. That is how someone can win with a minority of the vote. If a presidential candidate wins just 50% plus 1 of the votes in a state, 49.9999999 (or something) people have their votes just come out to zilch. This is unrepresentative.
Faithless Electors
I'll keep this one pretty short. Electors can technically change their votes whichever way they want. I know that this doesn't happen that much, but just the fact that it can, and sometimes does is really stupid. It's a barrier to true democracy set in place by the founding fathers.
Protecting the Small states
Some people acknowledge that the system has drawbacks, but still maintain that it is worth it to protect the small states. Well first of all, that made a lot more sense back in the time of the founding fathers than today. There was a much bigger feeling of state identity, and views often aligned with your individual states interests, so it made a little more sense (still not that much) to make some votes count more than others. But now, people can move from state to state in a matter of hours, and can change residence just like that. Political ideology is still consolidated in specific states, but the issues of the day are no longer about little states versus the big ones.
Secondly, if the purpose of the electoral college is to make candidates pay attention to the small states and not just big ones, the system itself prevents that. If you are running for president, you only have to focus on the swing states. In 2020, the state that got the most visits by both candidates was Pennsylvania, with 47. Next up was Florida and North Carolina with 31, and 25 respectively. The big states like California, New York, and Texas all got either no visits, or 3 in the case of Texas, but the small states are also missing. Wyoming, Montana, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Mexico, Idaho, etc. all have no visits, and campaign spending shows the same. None of these states mentioned were even in the top 10 of the states with the most ads. It is all in swing states, because the electoral college requires you to win states, not people. [1] [2]
Conclusion
The electoral college is an unrepresentative way to pick a president, and is completely against the American principles of democracy. Not only that, but it fails at it's one job of protecting small states, which even if it did do that, is not worth an actual functioning democracy.
I yield the floor to my opponent.
Sources Cited
- www.nationalpopularvote.com/map-general-election-campaign-events-and-tv-ad-spending-2020-presidential-candidates
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k&t=7s
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6HFdSCDq48
- crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34604/7
I did a video response but kept it under 10k words. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIE8XIw1S1E
Round 2
Recounts
Okay, your first argument was about the popular vote requiring recounts sometimes. This is just a dumb argument. First, of all, this problem could be solved with Ranked Choice Voting, but I acknowledge that RCV is not part of this debate, and I must argue for a popular vote without RCV. In that case, what is so bad about recounts? They take some time, sure, but obviously that's a price I'm willing to pay for actual democracy. Recounts should be the least of our worries. They don't elect a president with a minority of the vote, and they don't misrepresent people's votes. All they do is take a little extra time. The country won't go to hell-in-a-handbasket if our elections end up taking a month or two longer every so often.
The Two Party System
I think most of your belief system about this issue stems from our two party system. You claim that without the Electoral College, there would be so many candidates that one could win with 5% of the vote. Well this is just an uniformed claim. The electoral college has nothing to do with our Two-Party system. It is perfectly possible to have a popular vote that also doesn't let anyone win with too small of a vote. First of all, RCV again. I love this system because it just simulates runoffs without actually having to do them. I should have made the title a little better and added a replacement to the electoral college for my side to argue in favor of, but ce la vi.
If you don't want to do RCV, there are other options. Just look at Brazil for example. They have a two round election so if no candidate gets 50% of the vote in the first round, the second round takes the top two and has them run against each other. I don't know why you want to keep our two party system, but Brazil has one, so there is a way to have fair elections that maintain two party systems. Why you would want that, I have no clue, but it is possible. Also, regular First-Past-the-Post elections also end up resulting in a Two Party system. A nationwide Popular vote will not dismantle the two party system! You keep confusing what the electoral college actually is, and because of that, your main argument fails.
Appealing to the Big Cities
I already predicted you would bring this up, so I responded to it in my initial argument, but I can state it again here. Also, did you even read my argument, or just skim the headers, because that's what It feels like you did. If the purpose of the electoral college is to make candidates focus on other areas besides big cities, it fails at that spectacularly. The system makes it so you only have to win states and not people, so then the candidates just focus on the swing states. This is reflected in my sources from the last argument. This claim is baseless, and untrue. Also, if we were to institute a popular vote, then the presidential hopefuls would still not be able to focus only on New York, LA, and Chicago as you claim they could. That's not how population distribution works. Less than 20% of Americans live in even the 100 biggest cities. Candidates could by no means just hop around from big cities to big cities and win the election. They would have to focus on voters from all around if there was a popular vote, not as you claim if we keep the electoral college.
I actually asked Chat GPT to run the numbers and see how far down on the list of biggest cities in America you would need to get 50% of the popular vote, and this is what it came back with:
To secure 50% of the popular vote in the U.S., a candidate would need to win all the votes from approximately 379 of the largest cities, resulting in a total of about 80 million votes. This calculation is based on the total U.S. population and assumes each city's population contributes fully to the candidate's tally.
Think about that for a second. A potential candidate would have to win the 379 largest cities in america to get 50%, right down to Fort Pierce Florida, and that's assuming that they won every vote in all of those cities. Obviously, Chat GPT might be a little off, but the general message is still very clear: The Assumption that a candidate could jet from New York to LA and win is just plain stupid.
Conclusion
If you couldn't tell by now, I live in a very blue state. It is a 99.9999999999% percent guarantee that it will go to Biden this election. During your video, you said "With an electoral system, everybody's voice matters". When I go to vote this November, I will cast my ballot for Biden, but it will have absolutely no effect on the race. Suppose that I was going to vote for Trump. My voice would be drowned out even more. My voice is not heard in this election. The voices of everybody who doesn't live in a swing state are not heard, and that is not democracy. That is stupidity.
I yield the floor to my opponent.
Thank you Moozer for allowing me to post in video format here is round 2 https://youtu.be/XJAyep2AG1A
Round 3
First of all, I acknowledge that I got a little carried away with my arguments last round. I'll try to keep it a bit more professional this time.
Rebuttals
You spent the first main part of your argument responding to my RCV thing, and I do have lots of problems with your critique of it, but I will recognize that I didn't make any mention to RCV in the title, and so I won't go into detail here. Again, in retrospect I should have made an alternative to the electoral college for my side to defend, but I didn't and I have to work with just defending why we shouldn't have the electoral college.
Your first argument was about the Recounts again. You compared it to the Al Gore vs. Bush election with all the recounts in Florida. But what does this even have to do with a normal vote? No electoral college does not mean that there will be tons of recounts. There will probably be some sort of margin of error where there will need to be a recount, but the same thing is true about the electoral college!
You said that if my side is instituted, that means the candidate with the most money will win the election. I don't understand this argument. First of all, this is how our elections already work mostly, and having a normal election will not change that. I don't mean to accuse or anything, but it seems a little like your creating a slippery slope argument that has hypotheticals that don't really have anything to do with abolishing the electoral college.
You reiterated your claim about candidates winning with 5% of the vote in a popular election. But I remind you that the electoral college is not the reason that we have our two party system. The reason Is first past the post voting. There is a great video by one of my favorite YouTubers CGP grey that explains this. I'll link it here, but I'll also describe what it says in this format.
After a few years of this election cycle, it tends towards a Two-Party System. The voters for the outlier candidates realize that their candidate has no chance of winning, so they abandon that person and vote for one of the two major parties so the one that they really don't like doesn't win. Minority rule doesn't happen, because the Two Party system has nothing to do with the electoral college.
Also, where did you get the idea that I'm in favor of a popular vote? I never said that in the title, and the resolution is only about abolishing the electoral college. For all you know, I might be in favor of something completely different, like a majority vote.
One of your other arguments was about the black sheep in a state having their voice matter because of primaries. But what about after Primary season? Once the candidate is solidified as the nominee, then they don't have to pander to my vote because they know that my state will vote with them 100%. The only campaign ads I see are ads for fundraising. You also said that my voice matters in state and Local elections too, but even if that is true, it doesn't change the fact that I am not represented in the presidential election. It's just taking the focus off of the main debate. Just because the Presidential election isn't the only one doesn't mean that it should not be fair, and it should make it so that some people's votes don't matter.
You claimed that the electoral system forces candidates to focus on all kinds of voters, but that is just not true. It actually just makes them focus on voters in swing states. Why would candidates only focus on one group of voters in a normal election? It makes no sense. The electoral college fails at it's one job by making candidates pander to those who live in swing states, because once again, the electoral college makes it so you don't have to win people, you just have to win states.
You disregarded my claim about the candidates having to win all the votes from the 379 biggest cities in America to win the majority vote by saying there are 20,000 cities in america. But this is just a misleading statistic. 14,000 of these cities have a population of 5,000 or less! Would you call that an Urban area? Of course not! That's absolutely rural. If you're ever on a road trip and you drive through a town that takes about 5-10 seconds to pass by, that is counted in the 20,000 cities in the U.S.
Your final point was about Faithless electors being a benefit during times of war or elections fraud, but currently we do not have half the country invaded by an enemy. We do not have widespread voter fraud enough to overturn an election. The system remains unfair as it stands today.
Argument Summary
The electoral college is an unfair system that counts some votes more than others, and completely ignores others. Electing a president by almost any other reasonable system would be preferable, because then everyone's vote would count equal. The job of the electoral college is to make candidates focus on small rural areas, but it fails by making them only focus on swing states, and not the needs of everybody.
Conclusion
I believe I have won this debate. For one, I have provided more accurate statistics and sources, while my opponent has provided none and still maintains positions that I have proved impossible by statistics. My opponent has relied on false hypotheticals and slippery slope arguments to say that people can win the election with less than 5% of the vote without the Electoral college, which is not true. My opponent has also misunderstood my position and has been attacking a straw man this whole time. I never mentioned anything about a popular vote, and that is what my opponent has been saying I am in support of. My opponent makes a case that I should not be awarded a conduct point, and while I agree that I got a little too heated last time, I don't think that warrants a point deduction. The official voting guide says "Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate." Note the word "extreme". It also goes on to say, "Invalid if: ...it is too minor for a reasonable person to be significantly distracted from the topic." As I interpret this, just because I did slightly worse does not mean that I should have deductions. This is reserved only for major violations that distract from the topic of debate, and I don't believe I committed that. For all these reasons, I urge you to VOTE PRO!
Thank you for accepting this debate WyIted, I have had lots of fun. I yield the floor.
https://youtu.be/Rtd89Fqc8bo (will be available 10 minutes after I post round because youtube is still going through its checks)
Deleted by user request:
Americandebater24
07.07.2024 08:12AM
Reason:
Pro presented tangible written arguments that were coherent and traceable. Although videos may not be against the rules officially, they lack reliability for judging a debate or presenting a case. Indeed, they might be deemed plagiarism as Con is relying on others' arguments instead of formulating their own. Ultimately, videos might serve as sources, but they do not constitute arguments in themselves. Consequently, I award all votes to Pro, including for legibility, since Con contributed minimally to the debate.
Test
Could you please take down my vote? I would like to reevaluate it,
thank you for telling me I will take down my vote and reevoulate.
Wylted made the videos himself and his opponent said they were fine.
I don't know what the fuck is going on with this site right now but please pay close attention to this debate. This is clearly just underdog making a vote because I voted against him like a month ago
What is the acceptance rate of the electoral college? Do they have a physics major?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
TheUnderdog
07.06.2024 09:38PM
Con's argument: "NPV lets you win with 6% of the popular vote if there are enough candidates whereas electoral college requires a majority."
If there are 30 candidates running for POTUS, then the electoral college won't cause the winner of a state to have a majority vote.
Con just didn't really present well either. It sounds like a filibuster.
I would like to add to my previous statement the comment
"No offense"
Pardon me sir. Some idiot in the voting section failed to explain awarding source points and did not weight the arguments but instead provided a brief commentary on his opinion of the arguments
Are you genuinely retarded? This is a serious question. You obviously did not weigh each sides arguments
Okay tell me what you pictured.
With you I picture a young guy with a round face in the philosophers pose. Or thinking man's pose with hand under chin. Blonde haired blue eyed Aryan looking fellow
I never would've guessed that is what you look like IRL, Wylted.
Moozer trust me you want people not to vote on this.
Votes
jesus christ I forgot to screen capture. Whatever it isn't needed
You even tried to anticipate my arguments but failed to understand them. Nobody claims small states don't get a say for example it is about rural people or regional interests being taken into Consideration not state interests
I literally dismantled everything you said and we haven't even started the rebuttal round.
Damn it. Anyway I lied about counting words or characters but I assume I am good. I heard it was like 1600 words spoken in an average 10 minute speech and most words are about 5 characters long.
I don't really mind if he went over 10k characters. Most of it wasn't that great arguing anyways, and it was pretty short.
The limit is 10k chars, not 10k words.
My son gave me an angry look when I said it because he knows what gay is LOL
That comment about Nintendo... I'd like to think I've evolved past that type of humor, but it still tickles my funny bone.
But it’s still a matter of personal opinion. You can’t actually prove anything.
-> I’m just saying that this isn’t a debate about proving anything.
Then what's the point in having the debate? If I felt like debating about guns, then I would do my debate with the intention of proving why my position on guns is better than my opponent's (I'm very republican on guns, but I digress).
No, I’m not actually trying to convince anyone, I’m just saying that this isn’t a debate about proving anything.
I understand you want to claim the new territory for your team similar to what the North and South did with slavery legalization; the South wanted more slave states and the North wanted more free states.
I'm just here to let you know that in this political climate (especially online on a place like DART), there is very little unclaimed land available. Virtually every piece of land is either a slave state or a free state. Virtually every person on here has their mind made up on this issue. The left wingers are going to back what electorally helps their party; the right wingers will do the same. There are no neutral people on this topic that will read your debate. Everyone on this site is claimed on this issue.
There are even very few unclaimed people outside of DART.
If you live in any of the yellow states:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Then you can contact your representative about joining the compact to make what you want a reality.
That's not really what I meant. I mean that you're supposed to imagine that there is a neutral person that both sides are trying to convince. I just wanted to make it clear that neither side could actually prove anything, and that it's a matter of opinion.
->The goal is to persuade some hypothetical person who is neutral on the topic, not to prove anything.
Neutral people won't take your debate.
But the hidden reason the left wants to get rid of the electoral college is the same reason the right wants to keep it; from 2000 to 2020, 3/6 of the POTUS elections were won by Republicans with our electoral college. If the popular vote was how the US ran it's elections, then the democrats would have won 5/6 of these elections (which would have made America much more left-wing in terms of the Overton window). With the electoral college, our supreme court is 5 Republicans, 1 libertarian, and 3 democrats. Without the electoral college, Trump's 3 judges would have been Clinton's 3 judges (we can assume they are all would be democrats). This is 2 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, and 6 Democrats. Roe V Wade would still be the law, you probably would have many other left wing pieces of legislation (maybe every place being a sanctuary city by law). The one time the GOP won the popular vote, it was a very small majority. The democrat would have had incumbent advantage and more immigrant votes (immigrants lean left), leading to the democrat winning in even 2004 possibly, leading to Bush'es 2 judges not getting appointed by him. That would mean 1 republican judge and 8 left judges.
If you are a democrat, then you think this is a tremendous thing. If you are a republican, then you think this is a horrible thing.
If you want the electoral college gone, then you are going to have to give the right some electoral advantage in return (like making the federal voting age 21 or 25) so they know you are acting in good faith. Otherwise, it's a way for democrats to gain power and hold it.