A Debate On The Electoral College

Note: Private messages between members is irrelevent to a 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. Because Con offers no alternative, I will briefly outline and rebut his claims. ------------ Claims: 1. Largely Republican or Democratic states get overlooked in an election. 2. Suggests that the system could be reformed to a "weighted popular vote" so that the smaller states still receive the benefits of union. 3. The votes in a state for the losing candidate are "worthless, as they do not inffluence [sic] the election. " 4. Holding the census more often is a reform of the Electoral College. 5. Con claims that the election going to the House is bad because representatives rarely represent their consituency; and the election would be more susceptible to bribery. 6. "My final stement is that when I said some citizens have more power than others, I was simply saying that they have more inffluence on THEIR STATE's popular vote, not in the nation as a whole. " Rebuttals: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ------- CONCLUSION Con has offered no compelling rebuttal to my argument that the Electoral College is necessary for the smaller states to enjoy the benefits of union. He has not challenged my claim that without the EC the smaller states would be dominated by the larger states. All he says is that the EC should be scrapped or it should be reformed, but he does not explain how or why. In the final round I challenge him to address my argument and to offer a viable alternative to the Electoral College.