The USFG should abolish the Electoral College

Thanks again to Lady4Liberty. It is an intriguing case. I"ll start by noting that she basically dropped my case. She may spend some time rebutting the points I made in the next round (and I hope she will), but for now, voters should extend all my major points, particularly: The 4 points I stated from the outset were necessary for representative democracy, and how the Electoral College (EC) fundamentally debases all of them, and The effectiveness of my plan in fostering voter enfranchisement and an associated decrease in voter apathy. Now, Con starts by trying to drive a wedge between the terms "republic" and "representative democracy." What's a representative democracy? It's "a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them. A perfect example is the U.S., where we elect a president." [20] What's a republic? It's "a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen."[21] Those aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, a representative democracy makes an effective republic possible. Con hasn't explained why we are not a representative democracy, nor has she explained how that system of government is bad or even neutral. So, expanding on my last round, what does representative democracy do for the U.S. and its citizens? First, it reduces bias. When voter turnout is high, it"s more representative of the general population and its views, and therefore the candidates that are elected are based on that increased representation. When participation is low, bias increases because those who are involved in the voting process are a small subset of the overall population and therefore don"t reflect the opinions of the public as a whole. This bias is clear when we look at the views of non-voters versus voters. They"re very different when it comes to unions, school funding, jobs, health insurance, taxation, and government involvement than voters, and yet this population feels disenfranchised under the EC system, which means that their views on these issues are never heard.[22] And remember, this is some 60% of the overall population. But this only addresses increasing the number of voters under the current system, wherein presidents are solely elected by electors and therefore only accountable to them. That biases the system even further, turning almost 220 million eligible voters into 538 individuals, which introduces massive bias.[23, 24] Second, it tells policymakers that their constituents are paying attention, making them more responsive to the interests of those constituents. This has been supported by multiple studies, including a study that showed that cities with higher levels of turnout also have more representation of minority populations,[25], a study that showed congressional policy is similarly responsive,[26], and one showing that more actively voting counties receive more federal funds.[27] Incentivizing more voting ensures that citizens are better represented by their government, making the system more stable by increasing citizen satisfaction. Con us right about one thing: the founding fathers didn't want a true representative democracy. In fact, that's a large part of why they probably shouldn't be revered absolutely. During a time of great upheaval, they may have been justified in their views that voting should be restricted to a select few (effectively turning those few into the "majority" and giving them rule), but that doesn"t mean their decisions should be treated as unassailable or immutable. Before I get further into Con's case, I think a couple of things need to be made clear. Con spends a lot of time citing the Constitution, but this point has no teeth to it. It's unclear why following the Constitution as it is written is beneficial, or why the fact that it appears so early in the Constitution is consequential. She pretty much spends the entire round assuming that since the Constitution says it's good, and since the Founding Fathers said it was good, the EC is justified. This is a basic is/ought fallacy " just because something is one way doesn't mean it ought to be. Along similar lines, Con also says that it's important that states have representation, but she never says why. She just asserts it, saying that majority rule is bad without providing any examples. Moreover, she says that states should have representation, but individuals shouldn't, saying that we should eschew democracy in favor of having the states decide things for us. I can't fathom a world in which this makes any kind of sense. She clearly values representation, but seems to think that that representation should be decided by unelected, often unaccountable electors. Why are appointed electors the most appropriate means for deciding who the president should be? Why is their representation of our votes something to be valued? Most importantly, why is that value higher than the value of the representation of hundreds of millions of citizen voters? Con hasn't explained. Alright, now let's move into the other points Con makes. 1. Con states that the reason why the EC came into existence was to ensure that small states got representation. First, this ignores my [10], which shows that the EC was implemented to reach out to southern states, giving them electoral votes for their non-voting slaves. Second, it ignores the fact that, under the EC, California will always massively outweigh Wyoming, making them unequal in any case. Since Con didn't like my previous source, she can have this one.[28] Even without Maine and Nebraska, that's still 48 of the 50 states. Con's statement that states can change the rules of the EC doesn't invalidate the harms of the current system; its current faults aren"t lessened by the capacity for change. Third, Con provides no reason whatsoever why this still matters. Why should we care about state representation over individual representation? Con provides no reason for this. 2. Con says that the EC leads to less catering to large states. Under my system, the total population of any state is extremely unlikely to vote for a given candidate, especially given just how mixed they are.[29] Con doesn't give any reason why, under my plan, any candidate could plausibly garner the entirety of any given state's vote. On the other hand, under the EC, each candidate will earn the entirety of a state's electoral votes if they win that state. Under a direct voting system, the voters in those 9 states will always be split to some degree, preventing this scenario from playing out. Under the EC system, 11 states could much more easily align to vote for a single candidate. The 1888 election is actually a point in my favor. Note that the 4 states with the most electoral votes at the time (New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois) all went to Harrison, the winner.[30] Also, note how divided the country was " neither candidate was representing a plurality of interests across northern and southern states, and if the election had proceeded without the clearly fraudulent voting in New York and Indiana, Cleveland would have won under the EC.[30] If anything, this is a clear example of playing the EC being used to circumvent popular opinion and facilitate corruption. The 2000 election is just as bad. Florida became the focus of the election, which is a supercharged example of the voter disenfranchisement that I cited last round. That state came down a grand total of 900 votes. That was the difference that decided the election. The difference nationally was over 550,000 votes.[31] That kind of difference doesn"t engender chaos of any sort, nor is a broad-based recount chaotic. Under the EC, there was actual, real chaos in Florida,[32] so much so that the USSC had to intervene to stop it, and many still believe the election was suspect as a result.[33] That was the result of perceived bias in the recount process, a bias that is far less likely when you have multiple officials across multiple states doing the recount. Any theoretical chaos, solely asserted by Con, has no weight against the actual harms of the EC, which would not have existed if all that was at stake was a few thousand votes instead of all of Florida's electoral votes. 4. Con argues that candidates will only need to win one more vote than their opponent to win an election, and will focus more on cities without an EC. Theoretically, a candidate only needs one more vote than their competitor, though they would still have to court tens of millions. The same is true for the EC system, except that those votes are electoral votes, which, in 24 states, aren't even required to represent the views of their state. As for the focus on cities, two responses. First, that doesn't make sense. If every candidate solely focused on cities, they would be missing out on almost 20% of the population.[34] Con"s under the impression that 2 candidates would solely fight over the remaining 80% of the population, expecting to get roughly half that, and ignore the remaining 20% that could easily shift the balance in their favor. Second, even if this is true, it's better than focusing only on swing states, which account for only 20% of the popular vote. At least in my case, presidential candidates are required to pay attention to 80% of the population.[34] In status quo, 80% are entirely ignored in favor of a small group of states just because they're a little more purple than the rest. Alright, back over to you, Lady4Liberty. 20. http://bit.ly... 21. http://bit.ly... 22. http://bit.ly... 23. http://bit.ly... 24. http://1.usa.gov... 25. http://bit.ly... 26. http://bit.ly... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://wapo.st... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://bit.ly... 32. http://bit.ly... 33. http://bit.ly... 34. http://1.usa.gov...