DWYP 2 Round 1 AltF4 Vs GhostAnime: Electoral College vs 'One person, one vote'

[AltF4]

In favor of 'One person, one vote':

When the United states first began, the presidency was intended to be decided in the spirit of democracy. The early Americans wished to be rid of monarchs of Europe, and by allowing the people to decide the ruler, one can avoid their inevitably tyrannical rule.

However, given the state of technology in the late 1700's a nation-wide election was simply infeasible. Also, the previous status of the US back then was much less federalized. So, the choice was made to have the presidency indirectly elected via the 'Electoral College". This is the trademark of a republic as opposed to a direct democracy. Citizens vote for the electors in their state, who then "actually" vote for the presidency.


There are many problems with this form of decision making. I will outline them now:

1) The electoral college is merely an approximation of the popular vote. The electoral college is arranged such that the number of electors each state receives is proportional to the number of citizens the state has with respect to the national population.

The current electoral college contains 538 electors. The state of Arizona constitutes 10 of those electors. But of course the Arizonan population is not exactly 10/538's of the national population. In reality we can say that Arizona should have some fractional elector which is not being counted.

A popular vote will eliminate this area of "uncounted votes".


2) Undesirable Political Strategy. Each state has a certain number of electors, and they are all either won or lost in a "winner takes all" fashion for a state. For example, if a state has 10 electors, and a candidate receives 60% of the vote, he will receive all 10 electors in his favor. (as opposed to getting only 6 of the 10)

The effect that this has is abandoning certain states altogether where victory is assured, and overcompensating on key "swing states". As is illustrated by this picture, the total amount of effort during a campaign is startlingly polarized.

A certain minority of locations which for arbitrary reasons become "important" in the electoral college system receive a vast amount of attention.

3) The electoral college is no longer necessary. The concept of appointing electors to do the "actual voting" was a great alternative to a large nation-wide popular vote back in the 1700's. It might have taken months before a result was surfaced, and logistical issues still abounded.

Today this is not the case. It would be no more difficult to run a popular election than an electoral college.

4) Lastly, the electoral college necessarily emphasizes a two party system, and effectively rules out any third party. With the "winner takes all" model for a state's electors, a minority group can gain a substantial amount of support (non-trivial) and yet never receive a single elector's vote.

Ros Perot earned 8% of the popular vote in 1996, yet made as much of an impact on the electoral college system as if he did not run at all. This naturally discourages any rivaling 3rd party groups and candidates, and is destructive and counterproductive to a healthy democracy. (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/elecpop.htm)


Thanks a lot for reading, good luck!

 

[GhostAnime]

The current electoral college contains 538 electors. The state of Arizona constitutes 10 of those electors. But of course the Arizonan population is not exactly 10/538's of the national population. In reality we can say that Arizona should have some fractional elector which is not being counted.

A popular vote will eliminate this area of "uncounted votes".

If you find the proportion incorrect, couldn't you just change it to the right one? I do not see why we should immediately go to the unpopular vote when you have such an easier option.

2) Undesirable Political Strategy. Each state has a certain number of electors, and they are all either won or lost in a "winner takes all" fashion for a state. For example, if a state has 10 electors, and a candidate receives 60% of the vote, he will receive all 10 electors in his favor. (as opposed to getting only 6 of the 10)

The effect that this has is abandoning certain states altogether where victory is assured, and overcompensating on key "swing states". As is illustrated by this picture, the total amount of effort during a campaign is startlingly polarized.

A certain minority of locations which for arbitrary reasons become "important" in the electoral college system receive a vast amount of attention.

This problem would actually occur much more easily in the popular vote. If a candidate focused merely on New York, California, and Florida, he'd have a pretty good chance of winning the whole election because most of the population consists of those states.

They could easily ignore many places in the midwest and Alaska and still win the election. To avoid this from happening, the Electoral Vote gives them more of a voice than they would receive in a popular vote administration. Alaska's population pales in comparison to say, New York's.

3) The electoral college is no longer necessary. The concept of appointing electors to do the "actual voting" was a great alternative to a large nation-wide popular vote back in the 1700's. It might have taken months before a result was surfaced, and logistical issues still abounded.

Today this is not the case. It would be no more difficult to run a popular election than an electoral college.

I'd like you to tell me why it isn't necessary. The big states still decide the popular vote.

4) Lastly, the electoral college necessarily emphasizes a two party system, and effectively rules out any third party. With the "winner takes all" model for a state's electors, a minority group can gain a substantial amount of support (non-trivial) and yet never receive a single elector's vote.

Ros Perot earned 8% of the popular vote in 1996, yet made as much of an impact on the electoral college system as if he did not run at all. This naturally discourages any rivaling 3rd party groups and candidates, and is destructive and counterproductive to a healthy democracy. (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/elecpop.htm)

I don't see how this is a bad thing. Third-parties just aren't big enough to win a state. Yeah, they do better compared in the popular, but looking at these two ways of voting at a whole, this pales in comparison to the good/bad you get from getting/removing the Electoral College.

 

[AltF4]

If you find the proportion incorrect, couldn't you just change it to the right one? I do not see why we should immediately go to the unpopular vote when you have such an easier option.

Ahh, but that is precisely the problem! You cannot fix the proportion in the electoral college system because you cannot have fractional electors. You must have a whole number for electors (IE: 10 for Arizona, instead of the more accurate 10.502*)

The only way to accurately represent the will of the people is to count all of the votes as equal.

This problem would actually occur much more easily in the popular vote. If a candidate focused merely on New York, California, and Florida, he'd have a pretty good chance of winning the whole election because most of the population consists of those states.

They could easily ignore many places in the midwest and Alaska and still win the election. To avoid this from happening, the Electoral Vote gives them more of a voice than they would receive in a popular vote administration. Alaska's population pales in comparison to say, New York's.

This is untrue. You must consider that determining the presidency by popular vote does not have the "winner takes all" format that the electoral college system does. The reason current elections become incredibly centralized over a small number of areas is because of this nature.

Campaigning has a diminishing returns effect. The first visit a candidate makes may sway X number of voters, but the second time will sway less, and the third time will sway even less. In terms of trying to maximize popular vote, it will be in the best interest to spread out the campaign in as many places as possible.

You may recall that the 2000 election essentially came down to a contest to control Florida. Both candidates spent all of their efforts and resources campaigning in Florida, neglecting the rest of the United States populace. This happened because the remaining states were all fairly well decided. Bringing your popularity from 20% to 49% means absolutely nothing in the electoral college system. Whereas in a popular vote election, this would mean a great deal.

I'd like you to tell me why it isn't necessary. The big states still decide the popular vote.

By that I meant that a large reason the electoral college was put in place was for logistical reasons. Given technology in the 1700's, a nationwide popular vote would be very difficult. It was much easier instead to vote in electors, who would then go and vote in the name of the people.

But this is no longer necessary. A nation-wide election is no longer infeasible, and indeed not even difficult given today's technology.

The electoral college is a remnant of an older time. It is an outdated system that is in need of renovation.

I don't see how this is a bad thing. Third-parties just aren't big enough to win a state. Yeah, they do better compared in the popular, but looking at these two ways of voting at a whole, this pales in comparison to the good/bad you get from getting/removing the Electoral College.

Political parties change. I don't suppose you think Republicans and Democrats have been around in America forever, do you? At some time, all of them were 'third parties' (or split from previous parties). It is a natural cycle for political parties to lose favor, split up or be disbanded, and then be replaced. What is today a 'third party', might be the majority tomorrow.

The electoral college system represses these third parties in the manor I described previously. A potential politician is essentially committing political suicide by joining a third party, even if they gain a substantial amount of votes it will be as if they never ran at all.

Look at Ron Paul today. He ran in the Republican primary because running as a third party candidate in today's system is futile. Despite him clearly not being "republican" by today's standards. (Let's not get into all of that, though)

A popular vote election gives advantages to nobody. Whoever wins the most hearts and minds in America wins.




*=I just made up that number. It doesn't matter what actual trailing decimal Arizona has.

 

[GhostAnime]

Ahh, but that is precisely the problem! You cannot fix the proportion in the electoral college system because you cannot have fractional electors. You must have a whole number for electors (IE: 10 for Arizona, instead of the more accurate 10.502*)

The only way to accurately represent the will of the people is to count all of the votes as equal.

I will admit that the share of electoral votes isn't perfect but since this is an Electoral College vs popular vote, I'm arguing that's it's much more fair for the people.

You may recall that the 2000 election essentially came down to a contest to control Florida. Both candidates spent all of their efforts and resources campaigning in Florida, neglecting the rest of the United States populace. This happened because the remaining states were all fairly well decided. Bringing your popularity from 20% to 49% means absolutely nothing in the electoral college system. Whereas in a popular vote election, this would mean a great deal.

This is exactly what makes the popular vote so much more unbalanced. You could (theoretically) focus merely on urban centers and other similar areas and ignore most if not all rural areas of the state and STILL win the popular vote in this fashion.

The popular vote is made up of the population of the United States; but that's the thing: if you merely go to heavily populated cities and counties, you'll net the popular vote far more easier by simply campaigning in those places. One more thing I'd like to note is that rural areas (as a whole) compared to urban counties and cities gives you the most unfair % of voice I could imagine.

But this is no longer necessary. A nation-wide election is no longer infeasible, and indeed not even difficult given today's technology.

The electoral college is a remnant of an older time. It is an outdated system that is in need of renovation.

The framers put in the Electoral College so the candidates could be a representation of all the people instead of just the urban areas. Then, you would have urban areas deciding things for the country instead of rural areas. It is very clear that urban areas have different concerns. Everybody must be represented proportionally and the Electoral College is what grants this.

They understood that smaller populated states were important too and needed an avenue so they wouldn't be drowned out from the bigger states. This makes them be the president for everyone and not the urban areas and this still continues on to this day.

Political parties change. I don't suppose you think Republicans and Democrats have been around in America forever, do you? At some time, all of them were 'third parties' (or split from previous parties). It is a natural cycle for political parties to lose favor, split up or be disbanded, and then be replaced. What is today a 'third party', might be the majority tomorrow.

Yet the new parties emerged in the new system we have today. I'd think that the problem here has more to do with the people's loyalty to their parties rather than the voting system. This won't change no matter how you slice it.

 

[AltF4]

I will admit that the share of electoral votes isn't perfect but since this is an Electoral College vs popular vote, I'm arguing that's it's much more fair for the people.

I fail to see how giving everyone an equal vote for the presidency is "unfair" to anyone.

This is exactly what makes the popular vote so much more unbalanced. You could (theoretically) focus merely on urban centers and other similar areas and ignore most if not all rural areas of the state and STILL win the popular vote in this fashion.

The popular vote is made up of the population of the United States; but that's the thing: if you merely go to heavily populated cities and counties, you'll net the popular vote far more easier by simply campaigning in those places. One more thing I'd like to note is that rural areas (as a whole) compared to urban counties and cities gives you the most unfair % of voice I could imagine.

You seem to be missing that the current electoral college system creates a situation where attention is placed not only in "just urban areas", but also only one or two of those areas at all. It is much worse off than a popular vote in this regard.

For completely arbitrary reasons, Florida (for being a state with a lot of electors that was near the 50-50 line) wound up being the sole focus of the 2000 election. What makes Florida so important? It's absurd. Such a situation doesn't happen in a popular vote election. Rather than fighting intensely for an extra 1% in Florida, the candidates could have spread out and tried to garner a more significant amount of votes.

The framers put in the Electoral College so the candidates could be a representation of all the people instead of just the urban areas. Then, you would have urban areas deciding things for the country instead of rural areas. It is very clear that urban areas have different concerns. Everybody must be represented proportionally and the Electoral College is what grants this.

They understood that smaller populated states were important too and needed an avenue so they wouldn't be drowned out from the bigger states. This makes them be the president for everyone and not the urban areas and this still continues on to this day.

That bolded part is exactly my point in the first argument. The electoral college only ensures that people's voices are represented approximately proportional. But a popular election ensures everyone's voice represented exactly.

Besides, why would we want to over-emphasize the votes of rural areas? In a popular election, everyone's vote counts equally. Why would we want to put in mechanisms to increase the weight of votes from rural areas?! If they are in the minority, then then so be it. If they are in the majority, then so be it. That's the point of an election: To see what the majority wants. For cases where majority opinion doesn't matter, you don't have a vote.

Also, the divide between rural and urban is diminishing in the US. In the 1700's, it was clear as day. But increasingly so, all of America is becoming urbanized. It used to be the case that a rural area might be entirely isolated from the "outside world", and could easily be left out of the political process. But this is just simply not the case today, or at least significantly less so. There is not a need for specifically addressing the "needs" of rural areas.

Yet the new parties emerged in the new system we have today. I'd think that the problem here has more to do with the people's loyalty to their parties rather than the voting system. This won't change no matter how you slice it.

Obviously new parties HAVE surfaced, but their importance is being diminished by the electoral college system. (1) They receive 0 electors, despite receiving a non-trivial amount of votes. Third parties receive this penalty for being spread out across the nation, as opposed to centralized in one state. You can only get electoral college votes by gaining a majority in the state.

If Ross Perot's supporters all lived in one state, they could easily win the majority there. Ross Perot had enough votes (8%, if you recall from my previous post) to garner a majority in a state. But unfortunately for him, his supporters were spread out across the country. Why should the distribution of supporters matter in an election, and not just the total number of supporters?



(1) http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4312

 

[GhostAnime]

I fail to see how giving everyone an equal vote for the presidency is "unfair" to anyone.

Say the people of SWF wanted to vote on how SWF should be ran. Board A's opinions are radically different from another board B's opinion simply because they are both completely different boards that talk and chat about different things in different ways. Then we could move on to Boards C, D, and so forth.

Using all 26 letters, let's say all the vowels were the most populated boards. Being the most populated boards, they'll have different opinions about things in relation to the lower, much unpopulated consonants. What happens when you merely use the popular vote here is that you're just having the vowels decide everything regarding SWF. There are so few consonants that their voices can't ever be heard.

You seem to be missing that the current electoral college system creates a situation where attention is placed not only in "just urban areas", but also only one or two of those areas at all. It is much worse off than a popular vote in this regard.

What makes Florida so important? It's absurd. Such a situation doesn't happen in a popular vote election.

Let's go back to your Florida example. You say one of the candidates (excuse me but I never really voted in this election so if you can provide specifics it would be nice) jumped from 20% to 49% by just going to Florida in the popular vote? You also said that most of the country was decided.

How can you explain that big of a jump in popularity compared to the rest of the United States just by the popularity in Florida alone? Of course something like that wouldn't happen in an Electoral College; because you actually have to work in it. In the popular vote scenario, all you had to do was go to Florida to even tie with a guy who's got everywhere else.
Rather than fighting intensely for an extra 1% in Florida, the candidates could have spread out and tried to garner a more significant amount of votes.

Why would we want to put in mechanisms to increase the weight of votes from rural areas?! If they are in the minority, then then so be it.

This isn't the kind of thinking the framers went by. They realized that getting the popular vote only meant just getting the largest areas.

While getting the popular vote of each and every individual state meant going to not just large states, but others as well. I'd say it takes a lot more campaigning to win a lot more of the the popular vote of each state rather than just the popular vote of popular places in America in general, because not every concern is the same in each state.

It used to be the case that a rural area might be entirely isolated from the "outside world", and could easily be left out of the political process. But this is just simply not the case today, or at least significantly less so. There is not a need for specifically addressing the "needs" of rural areas.

Why wouldn't it still be the case today? These areas still exist whether they decreased in popular or not; I'd say the difference between Alaska and New York are still very well noticeable.

Obviously new parties HAVE surfaced, but their importance is being diminished by the electoral college system. (1) They receive 0 electors, despite receiving a non-trivial amount of votes. Third parties receive this penalty for being spread out across the nation, as opposed to centralized in one state. You can only get electoral college votes by gaining a majority in the state.

Again I believe this has more to do with our loyalty being far too adhered to our current political parties. Changing the system isn't going to help a third party too much. They will never win in either system so it's not worth changing to the popular vote just so they can prove they can get a lot of votes.

Why should the distribution of supporters matter in an election, and not just the total number of supporters?

Because, my good man, this is the United States of America. You are supposed to stand up for ALL of the people. I could merely win an election by just getting California, Florida, and New York. I doubt you'd say that's all of the people.. but that's the majority!

 

[AltF4]

I'm going to stop posting in "Quote-reply" format for a little bit. It's getting cluttered.


Your example about a "SWF Election":

You're again neglecting that the purpose of an election is to see what the majority wants. That is the purpose of an election. If you don't want to listen to the majority, then don't have an election.

There are plenty of times where the majority opinion is not taken into account. If everything where decided democratically, the majority would trample the rights of the minority. There are many systems put in place in our government specifically designed to make sure the voice of the minority is heard.

The presidential election is not one of them. That is why we have an election: To find out what candidate is supported by the majority.

Florida:

I did not say a state actually jumped from 20% support to 49%. Two posts ago I said:

"Bringing your popularity from 20% to 49% means absolutely nothing in the electoral college system. Whereas in a popular vote election, this would mean a great deal."

Hypothetically (in the electoral college system), a candidate can go to a state, rally a great deal of support (a 29% increase in, say California is very substantial) and receive absolutely nothing in return.

I'd say it takes a lot more campaigning to win a lot more of the the popular vote of each state rather than just the popular vote of popular places in America in general, because not every concern is the same in each state.

It doesn't matter what "you'd say" because you're wrong. Current elections are polarized state by state into "swing states" and "non-swing states". States which are close to a 50-50 split are highly contested and others which are not close are ignored altogether.

Try looking here.

This situation is present because of the "winner takes all" nature of states. Such a situation does not occur in a popular vote.

Because, my good man, this is the United States of America. You are supposed to stand up for ALL of the people. I could merely win an election by just getting California, Florida, and New York. I doubt you'd say that's all of the people.. but that's the majority!

No you couldn't. Those three states do not represent as large of a percentage of the population as you seem to think.

Quite to the contrary, try looking at this:

Image

It is the states won in our most recent election: 2004. Bush won the presidency without winning a single West coast or Northeast state.

However, in a popular vote, geographical locations are irrelevant. Everyone's vote counts the same as everyone else's, and is equally important as everyone else's.

 

[GhostAnime]

You're again neglecting that the purpose of an election is to see what the majority wants. That is the purpose of an election. If you don't want to listen to the majority, then don't have an election.

The Electoral Vote bases the majority on how well their campaigning is distributed. I think we have common ground here but just have different ways of going by it.

You want to majority of the country nationally. I want the majority individually.

What makes the majority of the country so much more better though? The Electoral College basically forces the candidates to at least spread in a couple of states instead of just a couple of cities.

I did not say a state actually jumped from 20% support to 49%. Two posts ago I said:

"Bringing your popularity from 20% to 49% means absolutely nothing in the electoral college system. Whereas in a popular vote election, this would mean a great deal."

Okay, not the state, but the national popularity of the candidate. Well, again, this is what the national popular vote would do to a candidate focusing on one of the more popular states in the US. If your popularity can increase that much just by one state, what gives you a reason to go to somewhere like Alaska or Montana?

Yes, a person can go to say, California and have a good deal of support there and nowhere else. Look at the 2000 map again. 2000 was a close election... but Kerry won less states. He won the larger states, however. With that said, he definitely won the popular vote. Do you really want to let the states Kerry won decide the general election for us?

This situation is present because of the "winner takes all" nature of states. Such a situation does not occur in a popular vote.

Sure. Then you'll have 'swing-cities'.

 

[AltF4]

What makes the majority of the country so much more better though? The Electoral College basically forces the candidates to at least spread in a couple of states instead of just a couple of cities.

Sure. Then you'll have 'swing-cities'.

I don't know what dream world you live in, but America's population is not centralized in a "couple of cities".

Did you not just read what I posted last time about how Bush won the presidency last election without winning a single West coats or Northeastern state?

If you add up the populations of the top ten most populace cities in America, you get a total of 24,780,403 citizens. That's less than a tenth of the total US population of approx 300 million. (US Census, 2006. Link)

You cannot win a popular election in America by concentrating on a small number of locations.






I feel the discussion so far has run its ground. Here is another argument against the Electoral College. (more to come soon as well)

5) The electoral College discourages voter turnout. Consider two possible scenarios. In one, a candidate wins an election in a state 60-40 with a total voter turnout of 5% of the population voting. In the other scenario a candidate wins the state election 60-40 with a 95% voter turnout.

In the electoral college system, there is no difference between these two scenarios. In both cases, all of the electors from the state are awarded to the winner. Once a candidate has a substantial lead in a state, there is no incentive to increase voter turnout.

This is clearly counterproductive to an effective, accurate, and healthy election. However, in a popular election, it will be in the best interest of a candidate to try to encourage voter turnout as much as possible in states he is leading in.

If a candidate has a 60-40 lead with 1,000,000 citizens voting, he has a 200,000 citizen lead in that state. If the candidate is able to double the total voter turnout, (to 2 million) he will increase his lead in the state to 400,000! He has gained net votes by increasing total turnout.

Another way the electoral college discourages voter turnout is through the winner takes all fashion the states are run. If the state you live in is a heavy supporter of one candidate, then as an individual, voting against him will have zero effect. If you vote for the losing party in your state, your vote is thrown away and completely ignored. This is obviously discouraging to voters.

In a popular election, it doesn't matter where you are or who you are. Your vote is counted alongside everyone else's. Everyone's votes count equally and fairly as much, nobody's is thrown away.

 

[GhostAnime]

You cannot win a popular election in America by concentrating on a small number of locations.

Just so we're clear on this, I didn't mean just those cities alone.

In the electoral college system, there is no difference between these two scenarios. In both cases, all of the electors from the state are awarded to the winner.

Fair point. However, he still won the state. The vote turnout in that state may be extremely small or extremely big, but I still believe in distributing people's popularity. Winning that state is still apart of winning the United States.

This is clearly counterproductive to an effective, accurate, and healthy election. However, in a popular election, it will be in the best interest of a candidate to try to encourage voter turnout as much as possible in states he is leading in.

I don't understand how a popular vote would get some guy to vote more than an Electoral College. He's still voting for the president, isn't he? I think incentives to vote depends more on something else rather than how their vote is counted.

In a popular election, it doesn't matter where you are or who you are. Your vote is counted alongside everyone else's. Everyone's votes count equally and fairly as much, nobody's is thrown away.

This is just a different way of looking at it under the same circumstances. If your town heavily supports a candidate, it's the same thing. If you count the votes from your state the same way, it is the same exact thing.

 

[AltF4]

Fair point. However, he still won the state. The vote turnout in that state may be extremely small or extremely big, but I still believe in distributing people's popularity. Winning that state is still apart of winning the United States.

A non-sequitor. This point is not about distribution of votes, it is about voter turnout. Furthermore, I feel I've already sufficiently demonstrated previously that the electoral college discourages distribution of attention and thus popularity. In an electoral college system, it is typical to concentrate only on a single or few "swing states" and ignore the rest of the country altogether. I don't see how this is "distributing people's popularity" in the slightest.

I don't understand how a popular vote would get some guy to vote more than an Electoral College. He's still voting for the president, isn't he? I think incentives to vote depends more on something else rather than how their vote is counted.

I thought I explained it rather clearly. With a popular election, in a state where a candidate is leading, it is in his best interest to encourage voter turnout in that region. An increase in voter turnout in a region where the candidate has a percentage lead results in a net gain of total votes over the competition. That is how a popular election encourages turnout.

This is just a different way of looking at it under the same circumstances. If your town heavily supports a candidate, it's the same thing. If you count the votes from your state the same way, it is the same exact thing.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. That your vote isn't counted in a popular election somehow?

 

[GhostAnime]

A non-sequitor. This point is not about distribution of votes, it is about voter turnout. Furthermore, I feel I've already sufficiently demonstrated previously that the electoral college discourages distribution of attention and thus popularity. In an electoral college system, it is typical to concentrate only on a single or few "swing states" and ignore the rest of the country altogether. I don't see how this is "distributing people's popularity" in the slightest.

I believe it is important to spread your popularity because you will touch the concerns of different kinds of people. Yeah, the majority is important. I agree. I just believe it should be set in a district majority.

The advantage of having the majority of several districts means that you appeal to all kinds of districts of many creed and backgrounds. Some places are more religious.. some places have higher crime rate, etc. It's just that many places have different problems and simply addressing the problem of the majority isn't a good way to choose who really is a good candidate.

I thought I explained it rather clearly. With a popular election, in a state where a candidate is leading, it is in his best interest to encourage voter turnout in that region. An increase in voter turnout in a region where the candidate has a percentage lead results in a net gain of total votes over the competition. That is how a popular election encourages turnout.

So let me get this straight first: with a popular vote system, the candidate will be encouraged to go to wherever he's winning to get more votes for himself?

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. That your vote isn't counted in a popular election somehow?

Okay, how about this. I want to see some evidence; preferably a poll that a good portion of the people would vote if it was under your system.

 

[AltF4]

I believe it is important to spread your popularity because you will touch the concerns of different kinds of people.

I agree. Which is one reason why a popular election is better than the electoral college. I have already demonstrated that the electoral college forces candidates to concentrate their efforts on a small number of swing states. Yet you seem to be ignoring this fact, and keep on pretending like it's the opposite.

So let me get this straight first: with a popular vote system, the candidate will be encouraged to go to wherever he's winning to get more votes for himself?

The candidate needn't personally travel anywhere for this purpose. Just putting out "remember to vote" posters the week before the election will increase voter turnout. Have you ever been to a college campus the day of an election? You can't walk 10 steps without seeing a sign telling you to vote.

(College campuses are traditionally highly liberal, so democratic groups organize these voting "reminders" to get as many of the students to vote as possible. Demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. )

Okay, how about this. I want to see some evidence; preferably a poll that a good portion of the people would vote if it was under your system.

Not a poll, but try reading this.

It's really pretty obvious why the electoral college lowers voter turnout. All of the attention from the election is focused into a small number of swing states. If you live in North Dakota, and the election is primarily focused on Florida, nothing that the candidates will be addressing will be relevant to you. It will be discouraging to vote on issues that have no relevance to you.

 

[GhostAnime]

I have already demonstrated that the electoral college forces candidates to concentrate their efforts on a small number of swing states. Yet you seem to be ignoring this fact, and keep on pretending like it's the opposite.

I suppose this is just the downside of it while creating a good thing that's definitely much more important to me: majority of different districts.

Yes, the popular vote system could do this as well, but I don't trust it too. What if the majority just wanted a few things while everybody else was drowned under it? I understand how important it is to have support from the most people, but what is wrong with having the most support from different kinds of people? It will make the candidate address the most diverse concerns instead of what he just hears the most.

If you live in North Dakota, and the election is primarily focused on Florida, nothing that the candidates will be addressing will be relevant to you. It will be discouraging to vote on issues that have no relevance to you.

So what is it about the popular vote system that will bring the candidate to North Dakota?

 

[AltF4]

What if the majority just wanted a few things while everybody else was drowned under it?

That's the point of an election: To listen to the majority. An election where you don't listen to the majority is just plain dumb.

What if you asked a group of people "How many of you want pepperoni on your pizza?" And then when 75% of them say yes, you just respond "Well, that's too bad. You're getting mushrooms."

What was the point, then, of asking the group of people what they wanted?!

So what is it about the popular vote system that will bring the candidate to North Dakota?

North Dakota deserves only as much attention as they have voting power. If they represent only 1% of the population, then they should receive 1% of the voting power and 1% of the candidate's attention. There is no reason to overemphasize the importance of remote and unpopulated regions of America.

In a popular election, geographical regions are irrelevant. We don't have to think of it in terms of "North Dokata voters", but rather just voters.

 

[GhostAnime]

That's the point of an election: To listen to the majority. An election where you don't listen to the majority is just plain dumb.

What if you asked a group of people "How many of you want pepperoni on your pizza?" And then when 75% of them say yes, you just respond "Well, that's too bad. You're getting mushrooms."

What was the point, then, of asking the group of people what they wanted?!

You have demonstrated that the majority works in cases where people are all the same. The pizza example is applicable because everybody likes pizza.

But it simply does not work as well when it comes to electing a president. My concerns are inherently different from a city boy's. Texas's concerns about immigration aren't the same as New York's concern about its crime rate. There are just too many differences between these districts to really think you're 'helping the majority'.

So yes, I agree, we must help the majority at all costs. There is a point to it because it's what the most want, but what the most want out of everybody of different concerns does not really help the candidate address all the the concerns he would have in an Electoral College. He'll simply address the ones he hears the most/what's most beneficial.

North Dakota deserves only as much attention as they have voting power. If they represent only 1% of the population, then they should receive 1% of the voting power and 1% of the candidate's attention. There is no reason to overemphasize the importance of remote and unpopulated regions of America.

This is the problem. North Dakota's concerns will never be addressed. They will never be listened to. They will never truly get that specific state's concerns out there. Who will listen to them?

Of course this example isn't the best when it comes to demonstrating my point but add all the states around it along as well. Even then some candidates may still not always go to rural areas when they campaign but they definitely won't go to a place that will get them a significant amount of votes in relation to the popularity of the country if it were moved into your system.

In fact going to North Dakota in your system would give them almost no advantage in the election at all.

 

[AltF4]

But it simply does not work as well when it comes to electing a president. My concerns are inherently different from a city boy's. Texas's concerns about immigration aren't the same as New York's concern about its crime rate. There are just too many differences between these districts to really think you're 'helping the majority'.

Right, okay. So you have different concerns. What makes you think that your concerns are more important than the "city folk's".

What you are arguing for is getting rid of a presidential election altogether, not for the electoral college. You're ignoring the fact that the electoral college listens only to the majority, just the same as in a popular election. It just does so in an odd, broken up, winner-takes-all, kind of manner.

This is the problem. North Dakota's concerns will never be addressed. They will never be listened to. They will never truly get that specific state's concerns out there. Who will listen to them?

...

In fact going to North Dakota in your system would give them almost no advantage in the election at all.

North Dakota will receive exactly as much influence on the election as they have citizens. Every North Dakota citizen's vote will count exactly the same as a voter from New York City.

Do not try to confuse the issue. Rural areas have their "concerns" addressed in many facets of the government which are specifically laid out to do so already. The minorities in the country are not left out of the political process, nor are their concerns ignored. This debate is on one issue: The Presidency.

 

[GhostAnime]

Right, okay. So you have different concerns. What makes you think that your concerns are more important than the "city folk's".

I'm not trying to make them more important. They just need an avenue to not get drowned out by urban areas.

You're ignoring the fact that the electoral college listens only to the majority, just the same as in a popular election. It just does so in an odd, broken up, winner-takes-all, kind of manner.

And that's the manner I prefer over the popular vote. Electoral College helps rural areas more than the popular vote ever will.

North Dakota will receive exactly as much influence on the election as they have citizens. Every North Dakota citizen's vote will count exactly the same as a voter from New York City.

Instead of counting each individual vote separately, try counting it by state. Keep in mind that I am speaking in districts.

 

[AltF4]

Well, first off, you seem to be contradicting yourself right off the bat. You say that you're "Not trying to make [rural voters] more important". Yet you then go and say that the electoral college "helps rural areas".

Now, tell me, how exactly does the electoral college "help rural areas" without making them more important than they are?

Instead of counting each individual vote separately, try counting it by state. Keep in mind that I am speaking in districts.

Ah, but this is exactly what I was getting at with the first issue I brought up: the electoral college is merely an approximation on the popular vote.

Imagine an election where we split up the country into 3 regions, and each region had a vote and the winner of 2/3 of the regions won the election. Well, obviously this groups things together too much, and suffers from a great deal of error from the "winner takes all" fashion of the voting.

A more accurate way to vote would be to split the country up into 9 regions, and award the presidency to the candidate who wins 5/9 of these regions.

But a more accurate method yet would be to split the nation up into 5001 regions. But even more accurate than that would be 9,000,001 regions, etc...

The most accurate way to run an election is to split the nation into however many "regions" it has citizens, and give each citizen one vote. Obviously, this cannot be divided any more. Any election not using this method is subject to error. Error that is NOT insignificant. There have been 4 elections just in the US where the president lost the popular vote to his opponent. (1)



(1):http://www.infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html (I actually don't like this site, but it's pretty well known information nonetheless.)

 

[GhostAnime]

Well, first off, you seem to be contradicting yourself right off the bat. You say that you're "Not trying to make [rural voters] more important". Yet you then go and say that the electoral college "helps rural areas".

And that is what it does. Help them. Not make them anymore important than urban areas. Simply giving them an avenue isn't giving them more ground.

Now, tell me, how exactly does the electoral college "help rural areas" without making them more important than they are?

By going doing more than what the popular vote has to offer: going by districts instead of nationally polling the whole country. The whole country doesn't all have the same demands and worries. They should be polled one by one and whoever impresses the most varied amount of creed should be president.

The most accurate way to run an election is to split the nation into however many "regions" it has citizens, and give each citizen one vote. Obviously, this cannot be divided any more. Any election not using this method is subject to error. Error that is NOT insignificant. There have been 4 elections just in the US where the president lost the popular vote to his opponent. (1)

How is it an "error"? Simply because they lost while having the popular vote? Who's the say that's even the correct way to decide the president for the country yet (as of this debate, I mean).

Okay, you can say that each person represents a region, but that really doesn't establish a majority anywhere but the country itself. I believe getting the majority of the state more accurately determines what the people think rather than getting the "majority" of one person.

 

[AltF4]

By going doing more than what the popular vote has to offer: going by districts instead of nationally polling the whole country. The whole country doesn't all have the same demands and worries. They should be polled one by one and whoever impresses the most varied amount of creed should be president.

So are you suggesting that you want the region containing Manhattan (with millions of capable citizens) should be worth the same as a region in Montana? (with no more than two dozen citizens)

How is it an "error"?

I would certainly call uncounted votes an error. If your vote got deleted by a computer glitch, you'd call it an error. If your vote were lost in a fire, you'd call it an error. But it's not an error when your vote isn't counted because your region rounded it off?

Anyone who votes for the losing party in a state gets their vote thrown away. This is an error.

 

[GhostAnime]

So are you suggesting that you want the region containing Manhattan (with millions of capable citizens) should be worth the same as a region in Montana? (with no more than two dozen citizens)

No. That would be unfair. I think Montana should have an 'avenue' in which they voice their opinions through.

Anyone who votes for the losing party in a state gets their vote thrown away. This is an error.

There vote wasn't thrown away. It is only 'thrown away' if you look at it nationally. They were voting on how the state should support either candidate; not who should be president nationally.

 

[Deleted member]

I'll start the judging.

Overview:

I love the fact that while both of you quoted sources appropriately when necessary, you essentially didn't need them. You both knew what you were talking about, and consistently used clever thought experiments to express your points effectively. Nice job to the both of you.

Alt: Perhaps it's because I live in Canada, but your points made perfect sense. Your syntax was impeccable, your points were tight, and the scenarios you came up with illustrated beautifully your ideas. Not only did you consistently stay on the offensive, but you also kept it fresh. Excellent job.

My verdict: A+

GhostAnime: You really surprised me here. I thought going in I would lean heavily to Alt, and while my scoring may allude to that, know that you made some very interesting points. While I understand the process, I've never truly understood the reasoning behind electoral colleges. However, you more than effectively justified it. One of your points that really made me realize this was the fact that states have individual cultures, wants, and needs, and by letting the entire country have their say, these particular niches could be drowned out.


While both of you did a great job, it seemed nearing the end, GhostAnime, that you contradicted yourself a few times, to which Alt pointed out poignantly.

My verdict: A

In summary, this is likely my nomination for best debate of this round, simply because it looked like the most intellectually stimulating for the debaters (which reflects upon the audience) because it wasn't all about sources and statistics. It was just two heads butting together. If I may say so, it seems like this is one of those debates where both of you will move on. Congrats to both of you.