The Electoral College

RebuttalsC1: Regional DifferencesThe pro reiterates his claim the electoral college exists to give smaller states representation. This doesn’t change the fact it gives fewer people more influence over a single office, which is a violation of democratic principles.The pro concedes the electoral college is undemocratic and that the US is a democratic republic. It, therefore, follows that basic democratic principles should be followed.He cites the senate as an undemocratic and as being like the electoral college, however as the senate represents 100 offices each elected by popular vote, while the electoral college exists to elect one office, this analogy falls flat. Additionally, as this debate is about the electoral college and not the US senate, the argument the Pro is attempting to make is simply a red herring. He responds to my argument about the disproportionate influence that Wyoming voters have vs the influence California voters have; however, he says that it simply doesn’t matter because California won’t be ignored because they have more electors. That is not at all the point of the argument. The argument was that this unequal distribution of influence is unfair and undemocratic, not about the influence of states, but the influence of voters.The con responds to my argument around solid states by claiming Hillary Clinton hosted a rally in Kansas City and Donald Drumpf hosted a rally in California. Both of these examples are extremely flawed as the “rally” Hillary Clinton “hosted” in September of 2016 was not actually in Kansas, it was in Missouri, a fact stated in the first line of the article he cited (1). Moreover, Clinton was in Kansas City, Missouri for the National Baptist Convention. It was not an actual campaign event, but an appearance at an independent event. Drumpf’s Rally in California meanwhile was a campaign event for the California primary, not the general election and is, therefore, irrelevant to this debate (2). In actuality, 94% of the campaign events were held in only 12 states, and most of them happened to be swing states. Two-thirds of the campaign events were held in only 6 states. Most other states got between 0-5 visits from candidates (3).C2: Moderate CandidatesThe Pro again says the candidates need to be in the center so they can appeal to more voters in swing states, however as I previously pointed out, Donald Drumpf was able to win over people in Swing states, without being more moderate. While Clinton won the popular vote, under the system the Pro is defending this simply does not matter.The Pro again claims that under a popular vote system, candidates would only campaign in a few regions, those being where their support bases are. This simply does not make any sense, however, as in addition to the fact that none of these regions contain even close to a majority of the US population, there are not enough democrats or republicans alone to elect a president. The largest segment of American voters is the independents at 42%, and thus winning the election depends on winning over independents (4). Simply preaching to the choir would not result in a victory for any candidate.C3 “Pure” DemocracyThe Pro reiterates his red herring about the senate, which I have already addressed and will not waste characters explaining again. None of what is stated in this argument is a response to what I said in round 3.Moreover, the Pro conceded this contention when he states the US is a “liberal democracy”.C4 EfficiencyThe Pro claims that the electoral college is more efficient because of the complexity of recounts, however, given recounts are conducted on a local level, and elections are controlled by state and local authorities, not by the national government. He cites the example of Florida in 2000, however, in the 2000 election, the entire issue centered around local recounts and the overall election result in Florida, which would determine who won all of Florida’s electors. Nothing would change in regards to this under a popular vote system, as the elections would still be controlled by the same authorities. DefenseR1: Swing StatesThe Pro claims my problem with swing states is that candidates spend more time in these states, however in round two, I stated my issue is that these states have greater sway in the election, and that is why candidates spend more time there. The Pro does not address this point at all. The pro then goes on to claim that “almost no state is ignored” and the Clinton did have a rally in Kansas. However, as I previously pointed out this is not true, as Clinton attended an event in Missouri, but it was not a campaign event, and I cited a source which pointed out that 94% of the 399 campaign events in 2016 were in only 12 states. 23 states meanwhile were not visited at all, among them Kansas(3). The Pro also cited a primary election stop in California by Donald Drumpf, however, that stop is not relevant to the debate being had at all. R2: InfluenceThe Pro claims that unequal influence is meant to protect minorities, however, this doesn’t change the fact that this violates democratic principles and his previous defense was nothing more than a red herring. This argument had simply gone unanswered.R3 Limited choiceThe Pro claims that “winner take all” is not written in law, however, this is blatantly false. As previously stated in all but 2 states, the electors have decided in a winner take all manner. While electors are able, in some states, to vote for whoever they want to, this does not change the fact that the electors are elected on a ticket. The Pro claims that my argument is against the way the electors are distributed by the states and this is not a problem with the electoral college itself, however, this is utterly asinine. It is the role of the Pro to defend the electoral college in its current form. In its current form, the electoral college is, with two exceptions, decided in a winner take all manner, and this is why one of my proposed solutions was adopting a proportional system for electors.R3 Third PartyThe Pro again does not address my argument, which is that the winner take all nature of the electoral college makes people less willing to vote for third parties. The Con does not address this at all, instead, he points to the 1968 election, which is an outlier and was the last time a third party won electoral votes. 1: http://fox4kc.com...2: 3: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...4: http://www.gallup.com...