The Electoral College should be abolished

"Secondly, 've found this debate kind of disapointing. I was hoping to discuss the merits of Electoral College. Instead, my opponent has just handed me the burden of proof and dismissed my sources. In fact, I get the impression he wouldn't have taken this debate if he would have had to have taken the burden of proof. " Sorry you've been disappointed. I provided an argument last round. I said why I dismissed your sources along with your not really explaining them. "(there are times when it is appropriate to subvert the people's will, but not when choosing candidates for congress and the presidency). " Why? Why not? The two branches you mentioned are 2/3rds of the Federal Government, and arguably the larger two parts, since the Judicial Branch can't really initiate anything. If the will of the people should not be the concern of the ideal of the American government, then it's not the concern of these two branches. "The two articles explain that popular sovereignty and consent of the governed are two principles upon which the United States is based. " The articles ABSOLUTELY do NOT say that. The first article, about popular sovereignty, says nothing about what the United States is factually based upon. The second article specifies "free and equal" citizens–the point I have been making is that when people aren't all equal, or when one majority dominates the other, the government might not be just. "Why would the constitution specify for representatives to be elected by the people? The only reasoning behind that could be that people's will should be reflected to an extent in their government. " "To an extent. " That's what I'm saying. It's not the definitive thing that should be reflected. "You see, when my opponent quotes the founders attacking democracy, he is quoting them attacking DIRECT democracy. The founders believed in a republic, as do I. And in a republic, the will of the people is taken into account. " I never said it shouldn't be taken into account. You argued against the Electoral College, because it supposedly subverts the majority, which you say is a key part of government. I'm saying that the government should reflect some will of the people, but not to the extent where it should just go along completely to what the majority says. "Dangerous majorities aren't as dangerous as the Founder believed. Otherwise, all hell would have broken loose with the passage of amendment XVII" . .. What? I don't even know what you mean. In history, anyway, the majorities have shown themselves to be dangerous enough to completely take away what is just from ethnic minorities, women, and homosexuals (this is NOT a reference to gay marriage. ) "2. ) There are many other measures in place in the United States to prevent alledgedly dangerous majorities, including: federalism, the separation of powers frequently resulting in divided government, an independent judidicial branch, a bicameral legislature, a Bill of Rights, etc. " Uh. .. I'm just not following you at all. Those measures may help, but how does that discount another measure that helps? "In fact, the Electoral College allowed George W. Bush to become president. This created a 'dangerous majority' by putting Congress and the President under control of the same party. Bush went on to use this majority to alledgely violate rights. " So? You found one example. That doesn't discredit the system. "Now for my opponent's second claim, that I contradicted myself. He claims that I contradicted myself by saying the Electoral College has no benefits, and then stating that it should be abolished. How are those statements contradictory? " That's not even close to what I said. "He also claims that I contradicted myself by saying that the popular vote frequently prevails, but the E. C. sometimes prevents it from doing so. " Again, that's not what I said. I've been refuting what you've been saying. You should go back and look at what you've said. You said that the College inhibits elections and thus should be removed, but then you went on to say that it's superfluous. Contradiction. "Keeping the Electoral College is a recipe for 2000 all over again. " For this argument to come close to being legitimate, you'd have to show why the 2000 election was bad. "Moreover, amending the constitution isn't very bureaucratic. It's only hard because people like my opponent oppose the idea, prompting many congressmen to also oppose the idea. " Here's a chart showing how to amend the Constitution. . http://www.national-convention.com... Keep in mind that each of these bubbles contains a lot of bureaucracy–it's the nature of this government. It's an arduous process. Here's a chart showing how to create a bill. . http://www.montclair.edu... Even more bureaucratic. Secondly, you just admit that it's a hard process. That's why you have the significant burden to show why it should be abolished–abolishing it would be a large, large pain. "Guess what? That's already happening! No presidential candidates actually cares for states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana (all small states). The states that get all the attention are big swing states like Ohio, Pensylvania, and Florida (all of which are highly populated and fairly urban). " This effect would only be increased with the abolition of the College. The places you mentioned are fairly urban. Without the Electoral College, a candidate would only have to focus in the largest urban areas to win an election, and then the views of anyone outside of these areas would not be represented. My opponent's arguments aren't really based on anything. He still hasn't shown why the Electoral College is bad enough–his two arguments contradict each other–to warrant the energy that would go into abolishing it. "I guess that's all that I have to say. Sorry about not spending time in rounds 1 and 2. Thanks to my opponent for taking this. " No problem, and thank you.