Should We Keep The Electoral College

MY OPPONENT DROPS MY COUNTERPLAN As my opponent has dropped my counterplan, he concedes it is the correct course of action, and I win the debate. MY OPPONENT HAS DROPPED THE CRITICISM OF DIRECT POPULAR VOTING. As my opponent has dropped this, he has conceded that the issues with a direct popular vote is correct. He only response to voter recounts, and thus drops the argument that we don’t want a system with majority rule. Third Parties: I am not saying that third parties are nonexistent in the current system, but that their efficacy is significantly blunted if we have an EC system. The reason for this is that when three or four candidates emerge, it makes it hard to win an outright majority in the electoral college. There have been prominent third party runs--Ross Perot and Ralph Nader are obvious examples--but the EC has prevented any significant third party threat from emerging since 2004, and the EC has effectively reduced our political system to two parties. The example of Bernie Sanders actually supports my position; it does not refute it. Sanders was able to run as an Independent and be successful in a popular voting scenario (he ran for Senate, and that is decided by a popular vote). Now, he is running as a Democrat because that is the only way to be a viable candidate. Of course, Biden and Hillary are the only two serious candidates either running or contemplating a run, suggesting that the parties usually coalesce around a moderate establishment candidate (which is arguably a good thing). My opponent drops the majority of my argument here, which is that even under my opponent’s system people who would become president would rarely win through a majority, but instead a plurality, which reduces the ability of the populace to rally behind the future president. Swing States, Small States: I never said that swing states were unimportant--of course swing states are the most important! The fact is, small swing states--Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada can sway election results. As I noted, if person were to vote in a small state, their vote has more weight than a ballot casted in California, meaning the electoral college system works. - I never said Virginia was a small state. Colorado is the 22nd largest state, making it about middle of the pack [http://www.enchantedlearning.com...]. New Mexico only has 5 electoral votes, New Hampshire has 4, Nevada has 6, Iowa has 6, Colorado has 8--which is small. My opponent criticizes my arguments on extremely weak ground, ignoring the actual statistical data on the subject--and the statistics show that small states are worth more and weighted heavily. The EC is working. Winner Takes All is Unfair: I actually refuted this. My counterplan eliminates this concern--as well as the concern of an undemocratic outcome, and it also preserves Federalism. My opponent’s plan does nothing to preserve Federalism, so my plan should be preferred. Not only that, but this argument is silly. The argument--that if Texas votes republican by 1 vote, so all the democratic votes are wasted--is insane. This happens NO MATTER WHAT in an election. Gore barely won the election in 2000 using the popular vote, meaning that all of Bush’s votes would have been a waste under a direct popular vote system. So, in effect, if we take my opponent’s argument as truth, all elections are unfair by the same mechanism. Voter Recounts. Literally my opponent’s argument against this was that Al Gore would have been a better President. This is not true, because Gore supported military interventionism as well. Gore, in a 2002 speech, argued that “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.” He simultaneously supported the war in Afghanistan, saying that “[we should stay]the course in our war against Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist network.” [http://www.gwu.edu...] It should be noted than an analysis of Gore’s and Bush’s fiscal plans found that Bush’s plans were superior to Gore’s [http://www.ipi.org...]. It should also be noted that Bush’s economic record wasn’t that bad, either. Productivity grew faster under Bush than Clinton and even Reagan, wages increased, and income inequality grew at a slower rate than under Clinton [http://money.usnews.com...]. Bush also saved 100 million lives through AIDS funding and research [http://www.cnn.com...]. Bush was not the best president ever, nor was he the worst. But tell one hundred million Africans that he should have lost the 2000 election, and you would get berated out of that room.