A Debate On The Electoral College

Finally, in the final round of debate Con offers a reform plan for the Electoral College, albeit a very brief one. I will address this below, then rebut his attacks on the EC. Con wishes to eliminate the 'winner takes all' aspect for each state. According to him, this would have no effect on the smaller states. Nothing can be further from the truth. I will outline the negative consequences of Con's reforms below: 1. This would take yet another right away from the states. 2. Rural Areas would receive even less attention than they do under the current system. a) Candidates would focus their attention, both in legislation and in campaigning, on larger populations. This seems obvious enough. Therefore, cities would have more power under Con's proposed system at the expense of farming regions, or other rural regions. 3. Rural States would receive even less attention than they do under the current system. a) A great number of states do not have large metropolitan centers. Politicians would have little need to venture into these states. As a result, the interests of these states would be largely ignored by national candidates. Additionally, we would likely see presidents only from large metropolitan centers, or (less often) from the state of the metropolitan center. New York, California, and Texas would dominate the Federal government. Because of these negative consequences, it is my contention that each state knows what is in its best interest (and the interest of its citizenry) better than does the Federal government. Therefore, the Electoral College should remain unchanged since it allows each state to make its own decision on this question. Con also proposes that all electors be required to vote as their constituency dictates. This is a question best left to the individual parties. If a party thinks that its elected officials (Senators, Governors, &ct. ) should have a voice in the direction of their party, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to operate as they see fit. He says that electors should "be pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. " However, this is in direct contradiction to his first proposal that each state divide its vote. Con also proposes removing the maximum limit on House seats for a state. This is irrelevant to this debate on the Electoral College so I will not address this issue. --------- I will now defend my own claims in the order in which he attacked them: 1. Con claims that neither candidate campaigned in Wyoming or the nation's capitol. Where he gets this information we do not know because he does not provide us with a source. The truth of the matter is that both candidates campaigned in Wyoming and in D. C. They may not have made an appearance, but they did campaign. 2. Con claims he did not support a weighted popular vote, but he clearly states >>"This means that if you change it to a system such as weighted popular vote, smaller states still recieve benefits. "<< He has changed his position so many times in this debate it is difficult to understand where he really stands. 3. Yes, a losing candidate may receive votes, but at what cost? The influence of the smaller states? The influence of all rural regions? The reader should ask himself if this is worth the reforms proposed by my opponent. 4. We agree that the census should be conducted more often. We also agree that this is not a reform of the EC. 5. Con offers "what might happen in the future" as evidence that an election going to the House of Representatives would be more subject to corruption and bribery. However, "what might happen" is not sufficient evidence to support his claim. I will also note that in the 1824 election, ALL candidates (including Jackson) had a minority of the popular vote. That is why the election went to the House. 6. It would be better to interpret this fact as saying that there should be a base level of power and influence for each state in the Federal Union. I have addressed this point on a number of occaisions throughout this debate, and my opponent has chosen not to respond. Therefore my point stands that each state needs to have a base level in order to enjoy the benefits of Union. CONCLUSION Con waited until the final round to make any sort of proposal. When he finally did, I showed why the current system is better than the reforms that he proposes. Con did not address the core of my argument, that each state needs an incentive to remain a member of the Federal Union. To consider when voting: Courtesy: We have both remained courteous throughout the debate. Con, however, attempted to use private messages to further his debate. Sp/grammar: Con's writing is generally sufficient, but in a few places his wording is such that his point is impossible to ascertain. Convincing arguments: Con did not respond to the core of my argument. I have shown his proposal to be quite flawed. Sources: Con used only one source, and misquoted it.