The Electoral College

Response to Pro Contentions (Round 2) Pro Contention 1: Regional Differences The Pro claims that the Electoral college is good because it gives smaller states more representation, and makes candidates care about the issues in smaller states. The problem with this argument is that by giving smaller states more representation it gives them a disproportionate influence over the electoral college, as I mentioned in Contention 2. Wyoming is perhaps the most significant example of this. Wyoming has a population of 453,588 and has three electoral votes. This means there are 152,000 Wyomingites for each elector. California meanwhile has 29,760,021 residents and 54 electoral votes, or about 551,000 people per elector. This means that a single vote in Wyoming has 3.6 times more voting power than a vote in California (1). This is a clear violation of the democratic notion of equal influence. Additionally, most small states (including my home state of Kansas) are considered “solid states”, and are therefore ignored by candidates in the General election because they know there is no need to campaign for these electoral votes. Pro Contention 2: Better Candidates The Pro claims that the electoral college forces candidates to move to the center of the political spectrum, however, he never demonstrates why this is, only claims that they need to appeal to voters in swing states. The problem with this is that there is no evidence that candidates moderate their tone because of the electoral college. In the 2016 election, the majority of swing states went to Donald Drumpf, who was in no way a “moderate” candidate. Candidates work to win voters over to their side through rhetoric, media, advertising and campaigning. If what the Pro says is accurate, candidates would not need to convince voters at all. The Pro also claims that Democrats would campaign only on the coast (referring to the West Coast and the Northeast), and Republicans in the South, if the Electoral college were to be abolished. This is simply unrealistic as neither of these regions contains a majority of the US population (2), and partisan divides exist within these states, and thus no candidate could acquire the support needed to win the presidency. Pro Contention 3: “Pure” Democracy The Pro claims the US is not a democracy, however, this is simply untrue. While the US is not a DIRECT democracy, in which ALL laws are decided by direct vote rather than by representative bodies, the United States is a democratic republic, which is a form of representative democracy (3). Therefore electing the president in a way which accurately represents the views of the electorate (such as the ways I proposed in the Solutions section in Round 2) should be preferred to the undemocratic electoral college, which violates basic democratic principles (as previously discussed). The Pro further claims that direct democracy leads to anarchy, however this is not in any way relevant to this debate as we are not debating the abolition of all representative institutions, only the direct election of the president, something which is already done in many other countries and is done with nearly every other elected office in the US. Pro Contention 4: Efficiency In this contention, the Pro alleges that having a popular vote is inefficient and “messy” and thus it is a bad idea. This argument is illogical, 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. Defense of My Arguments Contention 1: Swing States The Pro argues that the creation of swing states is a good thing because it increases voter turnout, voter education and somehow makes candidates more moderate (a point I addressed earlier this round). None of these arguments however actually address the problem with swing states that I pointed out in my argument. Moreover, the Pro concedes that the votes in these states are more impactful than in states like Kansas, and this only proves my second contention, that this gives some voters more influence than others, which is a violation of the democratic principle of equality. Contention 2: Inequality of influence The Pro says that the inequality of influence cannot be a bad thing because it increases voter turnout and education in some states and that since he does not see it as impacting voter turnout in other states it cannot be a bad thing. There are two main problems with this argument. First, this does not address in any way the actual argument being made, which was that the inequality of influence violates basic democratic principles. Secondly, the measurement of what is bad in this argument is how much influence a single vote has compared to another, not what turnout is. The Pro then again reiterates his argument about the US and Democracy, however, I addressed this in my response to his 3rd Contention. Contention 3: Limits Choices and Hurts Third Parties The Pro divides his response here into two sections, one titled “Solid States” and the other titled “3rd Party. The Pro first argues that “solid states are not as solid as people think”, citing his home state of Texas. While what the Pro says is true, it does not change the fact that the winner take all system, in which a candidate only needs a simple majority to win 100% of the electors. Even if the results in that state are close, this does not change the fact that one candidate got everything and the rest received nothing. This is the problem that I highlight in my argument, which goes mostly ignored in his response. He then claims that any reform will not benefit third parties as no third party received 5% of the vote in the last election. This does not address the point of my argument, which was that the winner take all nature of the electoral college discourages people from voting for third parties as people decide to vote for the candidate who is more likely to win a larger percentage of the vote in order to increase that candidate's chances of getting the electoral votes, rather than voting for their preferred candidate. The Pro does not address this point at all and thus it goes conceded. Sources 1. http://tech.mit.edu... 2. http://www.ipl.org... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com...