Resolved: Direct Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Votes

[Phantom]

Sup dawgs/chicas, Phantom here with another Public Forum Debate Topic for the month of November!

Here is the topic for this month in proper terms (that I couldn't fit in the thread title):
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.


You may pick a side (Pro or Neg), state your points CLEARLY, and (preferably) have sources to back your points up.
You don't need to write an essay up, so long as you're post is understandable to everyone

Note: You may define key words in this topic to give your points a little advantage of connecting with the topic stronger.



I'd like to gauge everyone's opinions here and what they lean more towards to (so I can determine which side is the actual hard side).

[Hodou Okappa]

Very pro.

In the past elections before Obama's election, the popular vote was in conflict with the election results. What this means is that a majority of people voted for one candidate, but because of the electoral college system the other candidate won.

But my biggest problem is that the system discourages voting. If you're a Republican living in a state like New York that almost religiously goes blue, your vote basically goes uncounted -- this leads many people to simply say "Well, my state's usually red/blue, so why bother?" In the end, the only voters that end up mattering are the ones in swing states, whose votes will actually have a chance of pushing their state's votes one way or another.

There's also the argument that the only reason we ended up with the electoral college in the first place is because politicians in the South knew that their states, with the abundance of slaves in those days and each one counting for 3/5ths of a person in determining the number of representatives a state had, would end up with more delegates than the Northern states. (Where this was stated originally, and if it ended up working that way in the end, I cannot say for sure.)

In the end, the only reason I feel we even still have this system is because it's been around for so long that people accept it as a part of our government.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ecVote.png

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/01 ... ivola.aspx

[SuperGanondorf]

Absolutely con.

There's a reason we have an Electoral College, and it keeps candidates accountable to all parts of the country. James Madison wrote that the whole point of setting up a republic is to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" over the minority. If all candidates need to be elected is a simple majority, then they need only cater to a few demographics and regions (read: urban areas) and the rest can be screwed. Do you really think candidates would bother with trying to appeal to less populated states and regions if it was based on a majority? Not a chance.

One of the main reasons the Electoral College exists is the same reason the Senate representatives were originally appointed by states instead of being directly elected: To ensure that state and regional interests are represented and protected by the federal government and the process of it. The Electoral College system forces candidates to heed regional interests. The lines have blurred somewhat from a clearly distinct North and South that existed in the early days of the country, but different states and regions have different strengths and interests that deserve heeding. Take, for instance, Arizona's immigration issues. I'm not going to get into the politics of that, but that type of thing is a regional issue that a candidate may campaign on to appeal to the states along the borders. I can't imagine a politician campaigning outside more than a handful of populous states if they were elected by popular vote, as they have no reason to appeal to less populous demographics.

Does the Electoral College system have its flaws? Certainly. As Okappa said, it can discourage voting in places such as California that virtually always vote one way or another. However, direct popular vote would discourage voting in other ways for the same reason; there are simply going to be some areas and groups that are not going to be represented because they are not necessary for election, so why should they even bother? And of course there are always the times that the popular vote disagrees with the electoral vote like in 2000, but that is how the system works. It makes sure smaller regions and minorities are represented as well. So, while the College is by no means perfect, it is far more fair and balanced than a popular vote.

[Hodou Okappa]

I love when the first two posts are heavy pro and heavy con arguments...

However, direct popular vote would discourage voting in other ways for the same reason; there are simply going to be some areas and groups that are not going to be represented because they are not necessary for election, so why should they even bother?

I honestly don't see the connection here... Minorities and rural areas would be getting the same representation as before. As things are now, it only matters where they live, doesn't it? And yes, political rallies and campaign stops would primarily happen in the most populated areas, but I don't think it would make much of a difference in how people make their decisions. By removing the electoral college, we give everyone a single vote that has as much value as everybody else's -- the place you live in would be completely arbitrary information.

To clarify, I don't support dissolving the senate or House, nor necessarily removing the Electoral College as a means of determining the representatives from those areas, which would mean that rural areas continue to get the same representation as they already do. I only think it's a terrible way to vote for President.

[Phantom]

Whoa, very nice points both of you guys!

I'm actually curious since I'm not all too familiar with the Electoral College except for the fact these members per state decide who they think should be President-Does the Electoral College have other roles that helps decide who gets to enter in other certain bodies of government?

[SuperGanondorf]

Whoa, very nice points both of you guys!

I'm actually curious since I'm not all too familiar with the Electoral College except for the fact these members per state decide who they think should be President-Does the Electoral College have other roles that helps decide who gets to enter in other certain bodies of government?

I'm going to bed soon so I can't really make a big post right now to further the debate, but in answer to that question, no. The Electoral College's only function is in presidential elections. Some states may have some sort of similar system on the state level (though that is just a possibility, I have no idea if that is actually the case) but that would depend on the state law. On the federal level, the Electoral College only elects the president, nothing more.

[Phantom]

Thanks for the help on this guys-This was a topic for a novice tournament that's going to occur sometime this week, relayed teh messages


I will post the December topic (yes they released it on November 1st which was surprising for me) soon.