Instigator / Pro
42
1540
rating
18
debates
61.11%
won
Topic

The Electoral College should be abolished

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
18
0
Sources points
12
0
Spelling and grammar points
6
0
Conduct points
6
0

With 6 votes and 42 points ahead, the winner is ...

PoliceSheep
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
0
1443
rating
11
debates
22.73%
won
Description
~ 41 / 5,000

The Electoral College should be abolished

Round 1
Pro
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 CON (AKmath) has the burden to either disprove my evidence and claims or 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]



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).


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. This has huge implications.

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


Con
The fact of the matter is... 

Many people say the Electoral College ruins American Democracy. But who's to say Ameria is democratic at all? And that my friends is exactly the case. The fact that the Electoral College is undemocratic is exactly the point, it's not supposed to democratic. All your arguments only work if you assume America's president is supposed to be elected democratically, but he's not supposed to be. You can find a quote from pretty much every member of the Continental Congress that clearly shows our founders didn't like democracy. Ben Franklin famously said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch." The thing is, the Electoral College was created so our president wouldn't be elected democratically. Most of the founders believed most Americans were incapable of voting for the right person, which was true then. and is even true today. A famous example is a candy-man vs. a doctor:
A candy-man and doctor run for leader of their country,
The candy-man says:
Look, I give you so much pleasure selling you delicious candies and sweets. You absolutely love them and they taste great. So why vote for the doctor. He sticks strange painful instruments in your body, gives you vile and repulsive tasting medicines, and tells you not to eat my delicious candies and alcohol and all good-tasting pleasure-inducing things. 
In this scenario, there is practically nothing the doctor can say that could defeat the candy-man's argument. While the doctor is actually the good candidate, curing you (while surgery and medicine might be painful and repulsive), and recommending a good diet so you won't have health problems in the future, nobody will like the doctor. This is simply because very few realize that all of the time, the more painful (literally and/or figuratively) and hard route is more beneficial in the end. People like happiness and pleasure over hard work, sweat, and tears. 
The founders greatly feared a candy-man ever running for president so they created a system that makes it much harder for a candy-man to win. 
Imagine a candidate saying they would guarantee all Americans literally free everything. (Food, housing, medical care, vacations, etc.). This candidate if he ran for a major party, would probably do very will attracting the poor and middle-class Americans. 
So in short, the Electoral College is undemocratic, and that's fine because WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a republic. 


Round 2
Pro
I thank my opponent for his response.


For rebuttals, it is going to be definition heavy so I will set out all the definitions I will be working by here.

Definitions
  • Democracy - "the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves:" [12]
  • Pure democracy - "democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives" [13] [15]
  • Representative democracy -  "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" [13]
  • Republic - "a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president" [14]
Rebuttals

The fact that the Electoral College is undemocratic is exactly the point, it's not supposed to democratic. 
The Electoral College is indeed undemocratic by design as you have conceded, that is not a reason to keep it. The Founding Fathers are a fallacious appeal to authority. Just because they created something, does not mean it is fit for the 21st century. [17]
 You can find a quote from pretty much every member of the Continental Congress that clearly shows our founders didn't like democracy. Ben Franklin famously said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch." 
You are mistaken here between the different types of democracy. The Founding Fathers didn't like pure democracy, due to the tyranny of the majority which is a genuine argument against forms of pure democracy such as in Switzerland. [16] [18]

The thing is, the Electoral College was created so our president wouldn't be elected democratically. Most of the founders believed most Americans were incapable of voting for the right person, which was true then. and is even true today. 
You have provided no evidence of this and how do you define the "right person". I would argue any person who is democratically elected is the right person by virtue of their mandate from the people.
candy-man vs. a doctor
You then go on an explanation of tyranny of the majority, which is an argument against pure or direct democracy - not representative democracy.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a republic. 
This is an argument that is assuming mutual exclusivity. [19] A country can both be a republic and a democracy - in fact, that is the norm.



Sources


Con
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
Carry all arguments forward. 


Con
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
Vote Pro!
Con
Forfeited