Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

III. It is impossible for the majority of the United States to make unbiased decisions. V. Leaders can be corrupt and easily cripple the nation. Argument III - It is truly impossible for the majority of the United States to be unbiased when voting. If civilian A wants to go to war and civilian B wants peace, how do you expect them to not vote for the President that will make their wants come true? The only method to achieve this is by withholding information regarding every President Elect’s policies and opinions. Then, all that’s left for voters to decide is by who has the largest number of years working in a certain profession. At that point the election is basically rigged to where the oldest President Elect will certainly win. That is not at all efficient as unskilled or even corrupt, yet experienced individuals will become POTUS even though there are other more skilled but less experienced President Elects running for office. Argument V - Since an Electocracy lacks a senate, a house of representatives, and a parliament, it lacks checks and balances. The main advantage of democracy is that no part of the government is ultimately more powerful than any other, so that no one branch or individual can abuse their powers. In an Electocracy, it completely lacks these checks and balances. An Electocracy President is essentially an elected dictator. This president will act in an arbitrary manner and can not be impeached until the next election. This means that if a corrupt or weak leader is elected, the country will be tremendously crippled by this leader’s ill informed or corrupt decisions. Rebuttal I - “Democracy is flawed. Democracy is nothing more than a popularity contest. Voting based purely on experience is not flawed.” Rebuttal: I would prefer Pro provide more reasoning for his claims, as I have spotted multiple bare assertions. Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. For example, in the latest election Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but still lost the election. The electoral vote system ensures that smaller states still have nearly as much of a voice in elections as much larger states. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over states as a whole, rather than the majority of the country’s population. It seems Pro has misinterpreted my statements. I am aware that Electocracy is not the election of multiple Presidents. President Elect is just another term for Presidential Candidate. I have already explained why voting purely on experience is flawed, yet Pro counters this only by plainly stating this practice is not flawed. This is the equivalent of a Professor giving an hour long lecture and one student at the end just plainly states, “That’s not true.” I implore Pro to further explain his reasoning. Rebuttal II - "Talent is useless. This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence." Rebuttal: Firstly, this rebuttal does not make any logical sense as I have spotted a Red Herring fallacy. I did not state that all experienced individuals are unintelligent. I stated basing votes *purely* on the most experienced individuals is flawed as they are still potentially unintelligent/unskilled and later gave an example of that being the case, I.E. Herbert Hoover. Once again, Pro will have to further explain his reasoning. Rebuttal III - "Unqualified Presidents have not failed where qualified Presidents have succeeded in the past. This is false because Democracy is based on bias. Electocracy is not based on bias, so it is automatically superior." Rebuttal: First, I have spotted yet another Red Herring fallacy. My point is basing votes *purely* on experience is flawed. Experienced people have failed in the past many times. Talented individuals have succeeded nearly, if not more times than those who lack talent but only have experience. My source shows this to be evident.