EC = electoral college
NV = National vote
Original debate I did
http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
=Case against the EC done by my opponent in the link above= (round 1)
1. The system of Electoral College is inherently flawed and must be discarded Sub point A the system right now does not follow the principles of democracy. A truly democratic government is one in which all people have an equal say in deciding who is to represent them. The Electoral College structure as it stands, essentially ignores the political will of the minority of any given state. Through a system of direct popular, similar political opinions from multiple states could band together to contribute to the over-all number of supported for their party. Unfortunately in status quo, the supporters of a particular party are isolated from their counter-parts in other states; reducing the overall value of their vote should they lose. This means that the voice of the 51% of the people is infinitely louder than the voice of the 49% which is fundamentally unfair.
Source: (Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus)
Sub point B many people do not agree with this system
It is the opinions of the citizenry which matters most in regards to the method of democracy. Should the majority of Americans prefer an alternative system, than it would be entirely counter-intuitive to keep the current system. The vast majority of the Americans want direct popular vote. The real question isn't whether we should change the system to direct popular vote, but rather why is it that we have not changed it yet! We have to replace the Electoral College system with the direct popular vote. In Gallup polls going far as 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system. This meniscus percentage has not increased significantly since then. The people have spoken and it would be wise to listen.
Source: www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Sub point C people will either stop voting or contribute to the polarized political culture of the United States
The Electoral College awards electoral votes based on a winner-take-all method: the candidate with the highest number of votes in each state gets all of the state's electors. This causes millions of votes to be effectively uncounted. The sad reality is that if an individual lives in a state where the vast majority votes for a party that they do not support, there is absolutely no incentive to vote. When a person knows it is essentially impossible to have their vote make a difference, there really is no point in participating in the political process. This forces the politically passionate to physically move to another state if they want their vote to matter at all, which we think is entirely unreasonable. Even if they do move, we think this is not in the best interest of the country. When you only have vastly polarized states with highly segregated political opinions, this tends to further isolate citizens from the opposite party and heighten political tension between the parties which hurt the political process as a whole.
Source: Michael E. McGrath explains why in "The Electoral College Inhibits Democracy,: written from electionreform.org
2. This system selectively reduces the agency of marginalized American citizens The Electoral College system fails to show nation popular will
In 2000, George W. Bush had 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266 electoral votes, but he had 50.2% of the popular vote while George W. Bush only had 49.8%. The narrowness of the results in California caused anarchy within the political structure resulting in a decision by the Supreme Court which was fundamentally undemocratic. Had a direct popular system had been implemented; the entire country could have distributed the hyper-burden placed on Florida, mitigating the problems caused by the political stress.
Source: 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, State Elections Offices, December 2001
3. Direct popular vote maximizes the democratic liberties of all Americans
(John B. Judis concludes in "Shut down the College," written for the American Prospect) Eliminating the Electoral College and nationalizing presidential elections could promote the proper use of the 14th and 15th Amendments by guaranteeing that each citizen enjoys equal access to voting opportunities through uniform ballots and voting machinery, and the availability of polling places.
*note I take no credit, NO credit for the argument above. See the debate.org link above, the person who wrote that is labeled as (PRO), my response is quoted from the man to the right, CON, and is also me*
http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
=refuting arguments against the EC (defending the EC)=
C+1: The electoral college is flawed
May I first point out we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. [1] Now my opponent states that in our system we have an equal say in who is repressing us. This is true under the EC (electoral college) What happens is at the republican convention (state wide) people vote on who they want to be the electors. Once chosen the person pledges to the candidate. [2] Now, this means when we vote for president we are not voting for the candidate, rather his elector.
Then my opponent says it is possible that 49% may trump the 51%. She claims this is unjust. This is false, as it is just for the minority to win every once and a while. But what she leaves out is the largest states still have larger influence on elections. Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, this year it will likely be PA. The EC is not direct majority rule, but studies show democrats and republicans usually get the same percentage of votes in big states as they do overall, john kerry got 48% in 2004, and he got 48% in ohio. As larger states are worth more with or without the EC the overall vote is fair as it either gives you the big states or you don't. [3] Basically saying your overall win/loss with or without the EC is going to be similar. So therefore it generally forces a majority. If you look at all the elections put together the majority of the winners had the majority of the EC and the popular vote. [4] This disproves your argument as the EC usually ends in a majority win.
---> Most people do not support the system
This argument is known as the bandwagon fallacy.The bandwagon fallacy mean appeal to the majority, more people like this therefore we should do it. [5] Note, POPULAR SUPPORT IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO DO ANYTHING. This fallacy occurs when one argues to appeal to the majority. [6] Having this argument fits into this fallacy, and popular support is no reason to do X or Y. This argument is henceforth invalid.
---> People may not vote due to the EC
My opponent claims people may not vote because their vote might become worthless. May I point out that is false, as the vote is still counted in the overall vote when you are watching fox news in November and see obama gets 51% of the vote against romney. The vote is indeed counted in the popular vote, and voting is extremely important regardless. My opponents whole argument is in theory people may not vote under this system. If you look at the facts, the EC actually increases the voting power. As each vote is in each district and electors are proportioned accordingly, it makes each vote worth more on the elector. In a NV (national vote) System your vote is worthless as we have 200 million people voting. The EC makes votes worth more. [5] Also my opponent brings up the point about winner takes all. Although this is partially true, many states have a proportional voting system. This means if you win district C you get 1 elector, but he wins district A so he gets on elector. [7]
C+2: The system fails to make the majority win
This argument as I have stated is false. The majority of the time the majority wins. the election in 2000 was a special case. Only in 3/54 elections has the electoral vote and the popular vote been different. [8] This disprove your case as the EC almost always shows a majority. And as I describe later is good for the election.
C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans
This is refuted by my st contention when I make it. I argue the EC helps minorities, a national vote would erode power for the smaller states. I will refute the 14th and 15th amendment now though. This is assuming the EC takes away peoples rights. Peoples rights are not taken away as in the EC each vote still counts, any voe could sway all of the electors. under the NV it would certainly break the 14th amendment as minority's and small states would not matter in the main elections.
Arguments for the EC
C1: The EC increases minority status
In small states under a NV system their votes will literally be USELESS. The NV system would mean the larger states have all the power, as the candidate would have to go to California, Texas, Florida, and the north east and bang! you won the election. This means the smaller states are neglected and would hold little power in the actual election. The electoral college actually gives smaller states influence on the elections. It actually means their vote is worth slightly more then someones vote in texas, as the EC makes it so a vote here in NM is worth more, but it gives our state potential to sway an election. Texas still is worth more EC wise, but the EC enhances minority status. [9]
"the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes." [10]
In a NV system the minority vote wouldn't matter as they are the minority. In the EC it matters as their vote may sway it from all of the electors or none of them. As stated it also helps the states with smaller population. [11] A NV system would not help EVERYONE as it would hurt small states and minorities.
C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country
The EC forces the winner to win the majority of the land mass to win. As the EC adds to the small states power (example Wyoming)
"The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states." [12]
As the small states with low populations are the majority of the country, and now the EC makes them worth something, it forces the candidates to win those states or lose. Under the NV system they only need to win large towns.
"If presidents appeared to be solely regional candidates, it would tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the country. Given the current Electoral College, no person could become president without both the support of a substantial portion of the population and broad support over different regions of the country." [13]
In order of population you see although the individual large states have more population, the majority of the country has low population. The whole Midwest and Alaska have the least population and the largest area. [14] The EC forces you to win these states in the mid west or else you will lose. As the EC forces you to do this it makes you win the majority of the votes (most of the time) as well as the larger land mass (usually).
C3: The EC encourages a two party system
A NV system would mean more people would run for president. The EC makes it so there is only 2 viable parties running (making it easier on us). I will be fast as I am low on room. [15]
C4: Constitution
We have an amendment making the EC exist.
"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." [16]
Now, we know the small states would never pass the bill, and 3/4 of the states need to support a change in the system to change the EC to an NV. As there would be too many small states against this action, the EC change would be impossible. Any attempt would be futile. [17]
__________
To see the rest of the debate I did and its outcome see: http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
__________
For my sources see: http://www.debate.org/debates/EC-sources/1/
NV = National vote
Original debate I did
http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
=Case against the EC done by my opponent in the link above= (round 1)
1. The system of Electoral College is inherently flawed and must be discarded Sub point A the system right now does not follow the principles of democracy. A truly democratic government is one in which all people have an equal say in deciding who is to represent them. The Electoral College structure as it stands, essentially ignores the political will of the minority of any given state. Through a system of direct popular, similar political opinions from multiple states could band together to contribute to the over-all number of supported for their party. Unfortunately in status quo, the supporters of a particular party are isolated from their counter-parts in other states; reducing the overall value of their vote should they lose. This means that the voice of the 51% of the people is infinitely louder than the voice of the 49% which is fundamentally unfair.
Source: (Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus)
Sub point B many people do not agree with this system
It is the opinions of the citizenry which matters most in regards to the method of democracy. Should the majority of Americans prefer an alternative system, than it would be entirely counter-intuitive to keep the current system. The vast majority of the Americans want direct popular vote. The real question isn't whether we should change the system to direct popular vote, but rather why is it that we have not changed it yet! We have to replace the Electoral College system with the direct popular vote. In Gallup polls going far as 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system. This meniscus percentage has not increased significantly since then. The people have spoken and it would be wise to listen.
Source: www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Sub point C people will either stop voting or contribute to the polarized political culture of the United States
The Electoral College awards electoral votes based on a winner-take-all method: the candidate with the highest number of votes in each state gets all of the state's electors. This causes millions of votes to be effectively uncounted. The sad reality is that if an individual lives in a state where the vast majority votes for a party that they do not support, there is absolutely no incentive to vote. When a person knows it is essentially impossible to have their vote make a difference, there really is no point in participating in the political process. This forces the politically passionate to physically move to another state if they want their vote to matter at all, which we think is entirely unreasonable. Even if they do move, we think this is not in the best interest of the country. When you only have vastly polarized states with highly segregated political opinions, this tends to further isolate citizens from the opposite party and heighten political tension between the parties which hurt the political process as a whole.
Source: Michael E. McGrath explains why in "The Electoral College Inhibits Democracy,: written from electionreform.org
2. This system selectively reduces the agency of marginalized American citizens The Electoral College system fails to show nation popular will
In 2000, George W. Bush had 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266 electoral votes, but he had 50.2% of the popular vote while George W. Bush only had 49.8%. The narrowness of the results in California caused anarchy within the political structure resulting in a decision by the Supreme Court which was fundamentally undemocratic. Had a direct popular system had been implemented; the entire country could have distributed the hyper-burden placed on Florida, mitigating the problems caused by the political stress.
Source: 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, State Elections Offices, December 2001
3. Direct popular vote maximizes the democratic liberties of all Americans
(John B. Judis concludes in "Shut down the College," written for the American Prospect) Eliminating the Electoral College and nationalizing presidential elections could promote the proper use of the 14th and 15th Amendments by guaranteeing that each citizen enjoys equal access to voting opportunities through uniform ballots and voting machinery, and the availability of polling places.
*note I take no credit, NO credit for the argument above. See the debate.org link above, the person who wrote that is labeled as (PRO), my response is quoted from the man to the right, CON, and is also me*
http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
=refuting arguments against the EC (defending the EC)=
C+1: The electoral college is flawed
May I first point out we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. [1] Now my opponent states that in our system we have an equal say in who is repressing us. This is true under the EC (electoral college) What happens is at the republican convention (state wide) people vote on who they want to be the electors. Once chosen the person pledges to the candidate. [2] Now, this means when we vote for president we are not voting for the candidate, rather his elector.
Then my opponent says it is possible that 49% may trump the 51%. She claims this is unjust. This is false, as it is just for the minority to win every once and a while. But what she leaves out is the largest states still have larger influence on elections. Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, this year it will likely be PA. The EC is not direct majority rule, but studies show democrats and republicans usually get the same percentage of votes in big states as they do overall, john kerry got 48% in 2004, and he got 48% in ohio. As larger states are worth more with or without the EC the overall vote is fair as it either gives you the big states or you don't. [3] Basically saying your overall win/loss with or without the EC is going to be similar. So therefore it generally forces a majority. If you look at all the elections put together the majority of the winners had the majority of the EC and the popular vote. [4] This disproves your argument as the EC usually ends in a majority win.
---> Most people do not support the system
This argument is known as the bandwagon fallacy.The bandwagon fallacy mean appeal to the majority, more people like this therefore we should do it. [5] Note, POPULAR SUPPORT IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO DO ANYTHING. This fallacy occurs when one argues to appeal to the majority. [6] Having this argument fits into this fallacy, and popular support is no reason to do X or Y. This argument is henceforth invalid.
---> People may not vote due to the EC
My opponent claims people may not vote because their vote might become worthless. May I point out that is false, as the vote is still counted in the overall vote when you are watching fox news in November and see obama gets 51% of the vote against romney. The vote is indeed counted in the popular vote, and voting is extremely important regardless. My opponents whole argument is in theory people may not vote under this system. If you look at the facts, the EC actually increases the voting power. As each vote is in each district and electors are proportioned accordingly, it makes each vote worth more on the elector. In a NV (national vote) System your vote is worthless as we have 200 million people voting. The EC makes votes worth more. [5] Also my opponent brings up the point about winner takes all. Although this is partially true, many states have a proportional voting system. This means if you win district C you get 1 elector, but he wins district A so he gets on elector. [7]
C+2: The system fails to make the majority win
This argument as I have stated is false. The majority of the time the majority wins. the election in 2000 was a special case. Only in 3/54 elections has the electoral vote and the popular vote been different. [8] This disprove your case as the EC almost always shows a majority. And as I describe later is good for the election.
C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans
This is refuted by my st contention when I make it. I argue the EC helps minorities, a national vote would erode power for the smaller states. I will refute the 14th and 15th amendment now though. This is assuming the EC takes away peoples rights. Peoples rights are not taken away as in the EC each vote still counts, any voe could sway all of the electors. under the NV it would certainly break the 14th amendment as minority's and small states would not matter in the main elections.
Arguments for the EC
C1: The EC increases minority status
In small states under a NV system their votes will literally be USELESS. The NV system would mean the larger states have all the power, as the candidate would have to go to California, Texas, Florida, and the north east and bang! you won the election. This means the smaller states are neglected and would hold little power in the actual election. The electoral college actually gives smaller states influence on the elections. It actually means their vote is worth slightly more then someones vote in texas, as the EC makes it so a vote here in NM is worth more, but it gives our state potential to sway an election. Texas still is worth more EC wise, but the EC enhances minority status. [9]
"the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes." [10]
In a NV system the minority vote wouldn't matter as they are the minority. In the EC it matters as their vote may sway it from all of the electors or none of them. As stated it also helps the states with smaller population. [11] A NV system would not help EVERYONE as it would hurt small states and minorities.
C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country
The EC forces the winner to win the majority of the land mass to win. As the EC adds to the small states power (example Wyoming)
"The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states." [12]
As the small states with low populations are the majority of the country, and now the EC makes them worth something, it forces the candidates to win those states or lose. Under the NV system they only need to win large towns.
"If presidents appeared to be solely regional candidates, it would tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the country. Given the current Electoral College, no person could become president without both the support of a substantial portion of the population and broad support over different regions of the country." [13]
In order of population you see although the individual large states have more population, the majority of the country has low population. The whole Midwest and Alaska have the least population and the largest area. [14] The EC forces you to win these states in the mid west or else you will lose. As the EC forces you to do this it makes you win the majority of the votes (most of the time) as well as the larger land mass (usually).
C3: The EC encourages a two party system
A NV system would mean more people would run for president. The EC makes it so there is only 2 viable parties running (making it easier on us). I will be fast as I am low on room. [15]
C4: Constitution
We have an amendment making the EC exist.
"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." [16]
Now, we know the small states would never pass the bill, and 3/4 of the states need to support a change in the system to change the EC to an NV. As there would be too many small states against this action, the EC change would be impossible. Any attempt would be futile. [17]
__________
To see the rest of the debate I did and its outcome see: http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Direct-popular-vote-should-replace-Electoral-College/1/
__________
For my sources see: http://www.debate.org/debates/EC-sources/1/
No comments:
Post a Comment