The Electoral College

DefenceC1: Regional DifferencesThe point of the electoral college is to give these small states, like Kansas, representation. Con goes into an argument about how there are less people to one vote in Wyoming than in California. This is the point of the electoral college, by giving these states representation their needs can be heard.Con claims, “This is a clear violation of the democratic notion of equal influence.” The electoral college is, in nature, undemocratic. If it was then our election would be decided by popular vote. Each electorate is elected by the people of his region, they then vote for the president. This is similar to the Senate, each state gets two senators even though states have different population. Does this not also violate “the democratic notion of equal influence”? We are a Liberal democracy, but we are also a constitutional federal republic(1). Certain parts of the government, including the senate and the electoral college, are inherently undemocratic. We do this so the issues in small states will not be dwarfed by the issues in other larger states. This originates back to the creation of this country’s legislature. In Con’s specific example of Wyoming and California he points out how votes in Wyoming are worth more. But california has 54 votes so it is very unlikely that the issue of California will be dwarfed by issues of Wyoming.Con does claim that states that are “solid”, like his home states of Kansas, are “ ignored by candidates in the General election because they know there is no need to campaign for these electoral votes.” During her campaign, Hillary clinton hosted a rally in Kansas City(2). Kansas was not ignored by Hillary. Trump hosted a rally in California, another “solid state”(3).C2: Moderate CandidatesThis year's election was an outlier among many, only in five elections has a person one the popular vote but not won an election(4). Besides the 2000 election, the last time this happened was in 1888. In the electoral college system battleground states are very important. There is a more even amount of democrats and republicans in these states. The election in florida this year was very close, Trump won by less than 2%(5).Because of this even distribution candidates have to try to appeal to every possible voter in the state to win. Their policies will have to appeal to the people of their party, but also to appeal to the people that do not affiliate to a party. Because of this they need to stand closer to the middle of the spectrum so they can appeal to more people. If you are closer to the middle of the spectrum you do receive more popular votes. For example, Obama was one of the more moderate candidates in the recent years, and he won the election(6). Clinton won the popular vote and she was much more moderate that Trump. On where candidate would campaign, Con claims “This is simply unrealistic as neither of these regions contains a majority of the US population”. This was not what I was trying to get at, let us look at an electoral college map of the 2012(we will be using this election because in this election Trump won without winning the popular vote) election(7). As you guys can see the democratic candidate, Obama, won states near the coast. He won California and the new england states. Meanwhile Romney won states in the south . If this was a popular vote system the democratic candidate would only try to appeal to the people of the coast because that is where the democratic majority is. Our democratic candidate would try to win over every democrat, so their policies would be far to the left. Similarly the republican candidate would have policies on the far right so he/she can win the votes in the states in the south because that is where his/her majority lies. C3 “Pure” DemocracyMy defence of this point ties with my defence of my first contention, but I will reiterate. There are part of our government that break the democratic ideal of equal representation. The senate is the key example, this is so the laws passed will not only benefit large states. Our government breaks this principle in order to protect the minority. C4 EfficiencyCon claims “however, as the electors are already elected by a popular vote. Americans vote for the candidate of their choice already, however this vote is counted towards electors, not the candidate themselves.” which is simply wrong. If we have an election dispute of a certain elector it is easy to isolate the problem early in the election stage to a small area. If there is dispute of an election result in the electoral college system it is easy to isolate the problem. This was seen in florida in the 2000 election. The problem with the popular vote system is that if there is an election dispute the entire vote would have to be recounted. The electoral college is clearly more efficient than a popular vote. RebuttalsR1: Swing StatesI address swing states in the defence of my second contention, but I will reiterate. Con’s main problem with swing states is that candidates put more effort into these states and other states are “ignored”. In the last part of the defence of my first contention I showed that almost no state is effectively ignored. Trump had rallies in California and Maine, and Clinton had rallies in Kansas and Texas. Candidates do put more time into swing states, but it is not “at expense of the approximately 40 other states”. I have also defended how swing states make candidates more moderate in my second contention. R2: InfluenceI have addressed this point continuously throughout this round, and I feel that I am simply repeating myself now. To put it bluntly, our government does not follow the notion of equal influence so we can protect the minorities. This is advantageous because if we had equal influence the majority could dominate the minority and lead to oppression.R3 Limited choiceThe winner take all system is not written in law. For example in 1968 North Carolina had 13 electoral vote, 12 went republican and 1 went to the third party(8). The winner take all system is not part of the electoral college, and Nebraska and Maine do not follow this system. This is not a problem with the electoral college, just a problem on how states distribute their electoral votes.R3 Third PartyIf a third party had a majority then they would win states, the 1968 is also an example of this(9). Con’s point in this part of this debate is the winner take all nature, which I have pointed out is not a part of the electoral college. Citations1.https://www.reference.com...2.http://fox4kc.com...3. 4.https://en.wikipedia.org...5.http://www.politico.com...6.https://www.washingtonpost.com...7.http://www.270towin.com...8.http://heavy.com...