Should We Keep The Electoral College

1. “It is bad that we have a 2 party system and we do not give other parties a chance.” We don’t necessarily want other parties to have a chance. In Europe, Neo-Nazi activity is on the rise and is becoming a strong political movement [http://europe.newsweek.com...]. In the US, these ideologies still exist, but they cluster in one of our two main political parties. Those in the center, the center-right, the center-left, the far-left, the far-right, and libertarians, in the primaries, tend to back the establishment candidate. As the establishment wants to get elected, they tend to support the most palatable candidate, and generally that means moderate. While extremists on both sides of the isle express their discontent with compromise, no rational person should oppose a system that promotes moderation and compromise. A national popular vote, by making it easier for third parties to have a real shot at the presidency and gain political influence, would energize the radical base on both sides of the political spectrum, making political polarization even worse than it already is. A two party system encourages inter-party consensuses that promote, rather than prevent, ideological purity. In the 1990s, Democrats protested Clinton’s welfare-reform and 1997 tax cuts. But as they had no other party to turn to, they stayed put, were able to shift the party to the left, and create a progressive wave that led them to victory in 2008. In Germany, the dissenters to such compromises left the party, divided the base, and the feuding between the two leftist parties allowed the center-right party to take control [http://prospect.org...]. Allowing third parties to rise up would complicate the issues, create more bickering, and harm all ideologies. This far outweighs “giving people a chance.” 2. “States like California are unimportant because they are safe states. … do you think states like Wyoming or South Dakota receive 1 visit from either candidate, no.” Wyoming and South Dakota were visited last election. South Dakota was visited once, by Joe Biden, and Wyoming three times, twice by Romney and once by Michelle Obama [http://www.washingtonpost.com...]. A classic case of a “solid” state switching occurred in 2000. The number of registered Democrats in the state outnumbered the number of Republicans two to one. Only 4 times had a Republican ever won the state. Bush won the state by 6 percent because he spent an inordinate amount of time and money there [http://uselectionatlas.org...]. Had Bush lost West Virginia, he would have lost the election. But he was able to make a solid state flip sides--it is now considered a solid red state. This debunks my opponent’s entire argument. California is extremely important to candidates. As it has a huge population, doing well in California has a few good effects. (1) It lets you win the popular vote--although not actually important, it is good to have that on your resume; (2) The state has a huge hispanic population, and by doing well with that itinerant group it allows your party to do better when if they leave the state; (3) if you have a positive impact on the state, you help party members running for local positions (like Governor), and you help your party win Representative and Senate seats. Even if you won’t realistically flip the state, if you put enough effort in to increase your party’s favorability ratings, you would help the party in general--and if you were to win, make multiple new allies in congress. Even safe states, like Texas, NY, and California--are important under the EC system. 3. “You did say Virginia was a small state, if i may quote you, "New Mexico, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Colorado," all small states, have a larger effect on voting outcomes than other states.” Whether or not Virginia is a small state is unimportant. The fact remains that voters in small states, like NM, CO, and NH, have a disproportionate impact on electoral results. The study measured, if you cast a vote in which state, where would it be most likely to change election results. Most of them happen to be small swing-states. However, on a pure weighting basis, you would probably want to move to Wyoming or Alaska to have your vote worth the most. 4. “Winner take all is unfair for states.” As I noted in earlier rounds, this argument is insane. (1) It is unfair because if someone votes for Romney, and Obama wins 50% + 1, all of Romney’s votes were wasted. This is literally my opponent’s argument. But this happens in every election no matter what. Say Romney won with 50% +1 of the popular vote under a direct popular vote. That means all of Obama’s votes would have been wasted! Does that mean elections are unfair? If this was the case, Romney would be co-president. “A” for effort I suppose. (2) This objection is refuted by my counterplan, that my opponent has dropped. 5. “This is not a debate about who would have ran this country better.” Stop claiming red herring when you are the one who brought the topic up. You are the one that mentioned the damage Bush brought to the country in the first place. You can’t say that the argument is irrelevant when you are the one that said it. It is unethical to blame me for going off track when it was you that got us here in the first place. 6. “The electoral college does not make it a battle over what the people like, but who the people in important states like.” Not who the important states like, but the states in general. The important states sway elections, but if the South decides not to vote, it doesn’t matter that Marco Rubio is the best NA and won Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada--he would lose without the help from those “solid” states. The winner wins a majority of the states in general, not a select few “important” ones.