Should Direct Popular Vote Replace Electoral vote in presidential elections?

This was a debate topic I had to do. US only!!!

Both my cases (Pro - mine... Con - My partners)

October 12 2011

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.


Introduction

When this resolution was first announced, I was honestly somewhat disappointed. I though the debate over the Electoral College would be relatively borin* g and certainly not as timely as the debate what the US government may be able to do to stimulate the very slow US economy

After researching the topic, however, I have a much different view.* I think this topic is great because it is very well worded and because there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate about replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote.

In this essay, I will provide some background information on the Electoral College (EC) and discuss the Pro and Con arguments.

*

Background

The EC is a college of electors who literally vote after election day for the President of the United States. It is really their vote, not the popular vote, that determines the winner on election day.

That said, the votes that the electors cast is really determined by the votes cast by the voters in particular states.* The way it works is that each state has a number of electors that is equal to the number of Senators and the number of people that the state sends to the House of Representatives.** The number of Senators is always two and the number of representatives is determined by the population of each state, though the determination is not precisely determined based on proportion of population.

After individual ballots are cast in each state, the total number of votes is counted and a winner is declared in each state.** In 48 states, the winner gets all of the electoral college votes for that state.* This is referred to as the “winner take all” system. In two states, the number of electoral votes is divided between the two candidates based on the percentage of ballots won by each candidate

If there is an exact tie in electoral votes, the President is then chosen by the House of Representatives and the Vice President is then chosen by the Senate.

In four times in history, most recently in 2000 when George Bush was elected President over Al Gore, the individual who won the popular vote lost the election. This happened because certain states with a large number of electoral votes delivered their votes through the “winner take all” system to the candidate who lacked a popular majority when other states were considered.** Based on these examples, and an intuitive notion that the person who receives the most votes should be president, there are ongoing calls to replace the EC with the popular vote – whomever has the most votes wins.

*

The Pro

*

There are a number of arguments in favor of abolishing the EC.

It’s intuitive.* The person with the most votes should win.* It’s how almost every other election is conducted.

Every vote should count. In the EC system, certain votes arguably do not count because all of the EC votes in a given state* (at least in 48 of them) are cast for the popular vote winner in that state.*

It’s a simple system.* The EC system is somewhat complex (see three paragraph explanation above). The popular vote system can be described in a sentence or two and would be much easier for voters to understand.

The EC is founded in elitism. One of the reasons that the EC was created was because the framers of the Constitution didn’t necessarily trust the “passions of the masses.” They wanted “wise men” as EC delegates to cast the final, deciding votes.

Minority voters are drowned-out.* In the “winner take all system,” minority votes are not heard very loudly because they state popular vote winner receives all of the state’s EC votes.* If there was a popular vote the votes of the minority would be directly expressed.

Electors could go against the state vote.* Although this never happens, and many states have legislation that would prevent it, the delegates could possibly choose* to case their own EC vote for the candidate that loses the popular vote in a particular state.

Legitimacy and respect.* Candidates that win having only won the EC vote and not the popular vote many not be seen as legitimate by the public, undermining their ability to lead.

It benefits some states disproportionately.** There are many arguments on both sides of this debate, but these are some of the common ones –

(a) Large states have more EC delegates, so candidates spend more time campaigning in those states.

(b) Some states are ignored entirely because it is well-known that certain states are likely to vote for certain candidates.

(c)* Representation is not proportional.* Vermont has one delegate for approximately every 100,000 people. New York has one delegate for approximately every 200,000 people.

(d) The number of delegates a state gets is determined by the size of the population and not the number of voters.

EC has racist origins.* Some contend that the EC came about as a compromise to protect the interests of Southern states that still allowed slavery. Since slaves weren’t emancipated in the South and couldn’t vote, they would have been automatically disadvantaged in a popular vote contest.

Technology solves.* *Many defenders of the EC argue that a nation-wide election would be very complex to administer and any recounts would be a massive and difficult undertaking. Modern technology, however, makes this much easier.

Con

There are more arguments in favor of abolishing the EC than there are in favor of retaining it, but that doesn’t mean that the Pro is correct.* It simple means that the Con relies more on a defending what we have – that the system works and that we should not go about changing something that is effective.

Given this, I’ll start with the arguments in favor of retention and discuss how to answer the arguments in favor of abolition.

It protects states rights, or federalism.* The US Constitution is structured around a system of checks and balances. The three branches of the federal government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial all serve to check the power of each other.** The state governments also work to check the power of the federal government and the federal government checks the power of the state governments.* By giving states substantial control/influence over the outcome of the election, it serves to protect states’ rights.

The EC works. We’ve had more than 50 elections since the EC was created.* The US is politically stable, almost every single member of the public views the winner as the legitimate President, it provides finality to the election, and it prevents any one particular person from accumulating too much power and not acting in the best interests of the US and the citizens.

It lowers campaign costs. If politicians did have to campaign equally in every state for every vote, it would substantially raise the costs of campaigns.

It encourages the winner to win a geographic plurality.* Under the EC system, candidates can’t just do really well in specific states. *For example, George Bush would not have benefited by just getting twice as many people in Texas to come out and vote for him.* He had to campaign in other states.

It localizes election problems.* In 2000, the vote in Florida was very close, creating the need for a recount in some counties and there was contentious partisan litigation that occurred around the recount.* Now imagine if there was a* national recount….it would take forever and there would be even more significant partisan litigation. The EC system localizes any problems and allows the winner to be known (usually) by the end of election days.

We don’t know that Al Gore would have won a popular vote contest.* If the election had been for the popular vote, both candidates would have campaigned differently. It is unlikely, for example, that both candidates would have spent so much time campaigning in states where the election was thought to be close and a lot of EC votes were at stake.* In a popular vote contest, candidates may simply have tried to win votes elsewhere and may have prevailed or not prevailed.

Many defenders of the EC compare this to the baseball World Series.** The baseball World Series is seven games, and the winner is determined by who wins the majority/best of seven (4).** We could, for example, say that the team with the most runs over the seven games should actually win the World Series, but we don’t. If we did, the teams would likely play differently – trying to score the most runs rather than trying to win individual games.

All votes are still meaningful. Votes are caste decide who wins the EC representatives from individual states.

The popular vote usually matches.* In all but four instances, the individual who won the popular vote won the EC vote.* In the instances where they did not, the election was very close. The Presidents who won the EC vote and lost the popular vote were considered to be legitimate.

Minority voters are not uniquely drowned out by the EC. In a popular vote, the minority would still be the minority. *Perhaps they could express their opinion more visibly, but the result would still be the same.

Racist origins.* It’s difficult to determine the precise motivations of the framers for designing and ratifying the EC system.* Arguably, however, the question should focus on how well the EC system works today and what values it supports.* Problematic origins are not necessarily reasons to abolish it if the baggage doesn’t continue today and it is a net-beneficial institution.

Conclusion

After researching a topic, I usually have a strong opinion as to what side has the better arguments. In this case, I’m unsure because there are strong arguments on both sides.

 

I would post the cases i wrote, but then you wouldn't get the effects of the highlighting i used... oh well... Most of it is kind of.... not actually used in the time limit


Resolution analysis: This round should be decided on which system is the best, and the way to judge which system is best is to compare them sideby side on how they protect the interests of all Americans.

Contention one: The electoral college ensures that all populations matter in the Presidential elections

When the framers of the constitution designed the Electoral College they had a reason for it, and that reason still exists today.
when
James Madison wrote The Federalist No. 10, in 1787 he was outlining why it is necessary that there is a buffer between the public and the power in the nation. This barrier prevents oppression.

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)Daily AdvertiserThursday, November 22,
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
The electoral college ensures that one faction, does not have so much sway over who becomes president that minorities can be ignored

According to PETE DU PONT, former governor of Delaware and current chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis in 2006

the direct election of presidents would lead to geographically narrower campaigns, for election efforts would be largely urban. In 2000 Al Gore won 677 counties and George Bush 2,434, but Mr. Gore received more total votes. Circumvent the Electoral College and move to a direct national vote, and those 677 largely urban counties would become the focus of presidential campaigns.
Rural states like Maine, with its 740,000 votes in 2004, wouldn't matter much compared with New York's 7.4 million or California's 12.4 million votes. Rural states' issues wouldn't matter much either; big-city populations and urban issues would become the focus of presidential campaigns. America would be holding urban elections, and that would change the character of campaigns and presidents.

 

^
I see you do debate too. High school or Jr high? Also the case I posted is my partner and I's pro and con case. And the intro and conclusion isn't a part of our cases. And this is the base of our contentions...

So what do you think of Decembers resolution?

Oh btw I do Jr High, I'm in 8th. I got 3rd in Pf last year at nationals with my partner and got 2nd in extemp!

 

I debate as well, but I see little point in posting **entire** contentions. I feel that the Electoral College is superior because it inflates the value of votes in small states to protect them. In a direct popular vote, candidates would probably campaign in the most densely populated regions (80% of the American population lives in urban areas, while 56% live in cities of over 200,000), while shunning the 20% outside of urban areas. Lastly, resorting to a direct popular vote would go against the very idea of America being the representative democracy/constitutional republic it is.

Next month's resolution is already posted, writing up a thread on it soon.

 

I meant what do you think about december topic like your opinion.

 

I think we should keep the electoral college but use a proportional representation system, where if a candidate gets 50% of a state, they get 50% of the electoral vote.

 

I am creating a thread for the new topic.