The Electoral College

Rebuttals Contention 1 The Pro attempts to rebut my argument concerning democratic principles is irrelevant as the US is not a direct democracy. This simply makes no sense, as the basis of a DEMOCRATIC republic is that it is a republic committed to democratic principles, namely the equality of influence. The example of the senate is, in fact, a red herring as it has nothing to do with the electoral college and should be disregarded because of this. Even if the Senate is a violation of democratic principles, this does not in any way justify the Pro’s argument nor does it delegitimize mine. As the Pro has not contested that the electoral college violates democratic principles, it has therefore been conceded. Contention 2 The allegation by the Pro that the electoral college is what causes undecided voters is simply illogical. People are undecided in every election, and eliminating the electoral college would do nothing to affect this. The Pro reiterates the claim that candidates would only campaign in their strongholds if the Electoral college were abolished, however as I previously pointed out this makes no sense, as there are not enough voters in these strongholds to secure an election, in addition to the fact that there are not enough voters affiliated with either party for candidates to secure the election on their own, as I pointed out in Rounds 3 and 4. The Pro also adds a new argument claiming that candidates would begin pandering to certain groups and this would divide the populace up. The fact of the matter is that this is happening in the status quo. Pandering has been a key feature of elections for a long time, and in this last election we saw candidates pander to the Latino community, Evangelicals, millennials, the African American community, etc. (1) Contention 3 The Pro claims that his contention that “Pure democracy is not good” has not been conceded, and while he did not concede that direct direct democracy is a bad thing, I never in this debate contended that “pure democracy” was a good thing, and that the US is a democratic republic and therefore democratic principles apply. By conceding these points, the Pro effectively made this argument irrelevant. Contention 4 The Pro states that there would be no reason for local election authorities to exist under a popular vote system, however, this claim is simply unfounded, as local election authorities exist not only for presidential elections but for state and local elections as well. Eliminating the electoral college would not end the need for local election authorities to exist as local and state elections will still be happening on the same day as the presidential election. It would, therefore, make the most sense for the elections to be governed at the local level. Additionally, given that laws for ballot access, voter registration, ballot printing, etc. vary from state to state, it would not make any sense for the federal government to be in charge of enforcing state election laws, in addition to the fact this would be blatantly unconstitutional. None of the Pro’s claims on this contention have any bearing. Defense C1 Swing States The Pro alleges that Donald Trump’s appearance in California during the primary election is relevant because “California is a blue state”. This completely ignores the fact that the primary election is competitive in far more states than the general election, and Trump was there to promote himself prior to the Republican Primary in California. As Trump was not campaigning for the General election in that example given by the Pro, the example is irrelevant. C2: Inequality of Influence The Pro has failed to respond to this argument and thus it goes conceded. C3 Limits Choice The Pro seems not to understand that the distribution of electors is decided by the States, of which there are 50. I do not have the time or the characters to go over all 50 states’ laws concerning the distribution of electors, however, if the pro demands a source saying this is how it is set up, I will refer him to sources number 2 and 3. Where it is decided in the law varies from state to state however as both of this articles show, "winner take all" is the system by which electors are elected and this must, as with all legal matters, be determined by the laws of these states. C3 Third Parties The Pro has failed to respond to this argument and thus it goes conceded. Conclusion In this debate, I have shown that the electoral college violates basic democratic principles, limits choices, and disadvantages third parties. The Pro has made several claims to support his contention, yet all of them have failed to adequately support his claims. He has further failed to address my contentions, leaving several points unanswered and thus conceded. Thank you and Vote Con. Sources 1) http://www.attn.com... 2) https://www.archives.gov... 3) http://www.fairvote.org...