A Debate On The Electoral College

"Note: Private messages between members is irrelevent to a debate. " I was simply stating the subject of this debate "In the second round of debate Con offers no argument of his own. He seems content to merely rebut my points without offering an alternative plan to the Electoral College. Offering an alternative is essential if Con hopes to be competitive in this debate and should offer one in the final round. " I realize my error in the last argument. My alternative is eliminating the "winner-take-all" aspect of the Electoral College. This means that states may divide their Electoral Vtes between different candidates. This means that smaller states still have representation and means that no votes are lost. I also believe all electors shoould be pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. I think we should also eliminate the maximum number of seats in the house. By destroying this limit, it lets all states be equally represented. "1. The Election of 2008 provides evidence to the contrary. States that are supposedly firmly in Republican hands voted in favor of the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. These include, but are not limited to North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Indiana. These states not only did not go overlooked, but they ultimately voted against 'their' party. Obviously for this to occur, the democrats did not ignore the largely Republican states. Nor did the republicans, who scrambled to win back their support. " I realize this, but my point still stands. Neither of the candidates campaigned in wyoming ( a highly Republican state) or Washington D. C. (a highly Democratic city). Though the states you mention defied their historcal voting records, they did not defy the polls. "2. It is odd that Con would reverse course and support a "weighted popular vote" despite opposing the Electoral College because it gives the vote of some states more weight than others. Why complicate the electoral system if it is to be replaced with the very same concepts? The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies in this case. " I didn't say I supported weighted Popular Vote, I said there are systems where states are adequetley represernted. "3. This would apply to the nation as a whole, even if there were a popular vote. Under either system there will necessarily be a losing side. By this logic, all people voting for the losing candidate have wasted their time and their vote was worthless. Clearly this is not a compelling reason to reform the system, because there is no plausible way to eliminate the existence of a losing candidate in a free election short of electing all candidates or instituting a one-party system. " The system I offered above makes a vote in any individual state count for something. This means that if you vote for the losing candidate in your state, they might still get Electoral Votes. "4. This is simply not true. There would be unintended effects on the Electoral College as a result of conducting the census more often, but the system would still remain the same. " I think we just agree on this issue. "5. Con has offered no sources and provides no evidence to support this claim. Until he does so we cannot suppose his claim to be true that representatives cannot be trusted to reflect their consituency. The same is true for bribery. I predict he will cite the 1824 election. However, historians have yet to produce enough evidence to prove there was bribery or any sort of "corrupt bargain. " I don't expect Con will be able to do what longtime historians have yet to be able to do. Without evidence that bribery and corrupt representatives is the norm, this is not a valid argument in favor of taking the tie breaking duty from the House of Representatives. " Although I do think there was corruption in the 1824 election, A better example of this is What might happen in the future. Already we see a bitter battle between Republicans and Democrats, if they decide the president, none of the votes will matter, and the representatives will not reflect the votes of the nation. For those who don't know, in 1824, No one recieved a majority of votes. So the election was decided by the House Of Representatives. Then after Speaker of the House Henry Clay supported John Quincy Adams, he easily became president, even after winning the Popular vote or the most Electoral Votes. Adams then Mae Clay the Secretary of State. The Electoral College was flawed, so with a minority of the popular and Electoral Vote. By pledging all the electors tie situations are less likely. 6. This point does not even make sense, and is a blatant attempt at reversing his original position. He originally said >>>"In Wyoming citizens have more inffluence on the Electoral College by a margain of 4 to 1 (. http://www.fairvote.org.........) this leads to cititzens in certain states have more "power" than others. "<<< Here he is saying that Wyoming citizens have a more powerful representation than other states. This point is clear by his source (which he misquoted) that says Wyoming citizens have four times more power than Texas citizens. This point I have addressed and Con has not rebutted. His new position makes even less sense. He claims that some citizens have more power within "THEIR STATE's popular vote. " This is simply untrue and unfounded. He offers no evidence or support for this point. I realize my wording was bad. I meant that Wyoming has an elector for every 165,000 people while Texas has an elector for every 652,000 people. This means they are exxtremely overrepresented. I know my wording was VERY bad and confusing.