DWYP 2 Round 1 Byronman vs. Jam Stunna: Electoral College vs. One Person, One Vote

[Byronman]

I am arguing for One Person, One Vote.

I will start with some information on the Electoral College. Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution states that, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

These "electors" vote twice, one for who they want to be president, and one who they want to be vice president. Only their votes truly matter in an election and they are not required to vote for who one the popular vote in their state. Whoever wins 270/538 votes, is the winner.

This type of job should not exist. The government tells people their opinion matters, but in actuality, it is only the electors votes that really matter. It also allows for a president to be elected, though he did not win the popular vote (i.e. president Bush's election in 2000) so that he/she is president even though the nation does not want him.

And too Jam Stunna, I wish you good luck

 

[Jam Stunna]

Good luck to you as well sir!

The first thing that one must consider when talking about the electoral college is that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. That is not just a semantical difference, but a very important one. There are no direct votes in any facet of American political life (save for referendums, and those usually must overcome significant hurdles to be considered). We live in a country where the general population votes for representatives, and then those representatives proceed to determine policy. The electors are just another part of the representative system.

Besides, America was never intended to be a democracy in the first place. When the country was founded, you were required to be a white male of substantial land holdings in order to cast a vote, a group of people that comprised less than 10% of the population in the 1780's.

 

[Byronman]

Good luck to you as well sir!

The first thing that one must consider when talking about the electoral college is that the United States is not a democracy, it is a republic. That is not just a semantical difference, but a very important one. There are no direct votes in any facet of American political life (save for referendums, and those usually must overcome significant hurdles to be considered). We live in a country where the general population votes for representatives, and then those representatives proceed to determine policy. The electors are just another part of the representative system.

You are right. But if the people do not directly chose their representative, then there is no point. It is useless to have to choose a representative, that selects the representative.

Besides, America was never intended to be a democracy in the first place. When the country was founded, you were required to be a white male of substantial land holdings in order to cast a vote, a group of people that comprised less than 10% of the population in the 1780's.

Those standards have changed since then. The only reason that was intended was because the paradigm of that time was that the white man is the smartest, most dominant specimen of human being.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You are right. But if the people do not directly chose their representative, then there is no point. It is useless to have to choose a representative, that selects the representative.

Why? The country has done just fine in the past without directly choosing the members of governments. We don't directly choose cabinet members, or military generals, or Speaker of the House, or judges. In fact, most leadership positions in the federal government are appointees.

Those standards have changed since then. The only reason that was intended was because the paradigm of that time was that the white man is the smartest, most dominant specimen of human being.

Even still, we haven't become a democracy. More people have become franchised, but we still rely on a representative form of government that restricts certain people from participating (those under 18 and felons in certain states come to mind).

 

[Byronman]

Why? The country has done just fine in the past without directly choosing the members of governments. We don't directly choose cabinet members, or military generals, or Speaker of the House, or judges. In fact, most leadership positions in the federal government are appointees.

This past 8 years with President Bush hasn't exactly been a walk in the park...And every member of the federal legislature is directly elected.

Even still, we haven't become a democracy. More people have become franchised, but we still rely on a representative form of government that restricts certain people from participating (those under 18 and felons in certain states come to mind).

That is because the opinions of people under 18 and felons are not highly regarded in mainstream society. It would be silly to allow criminals and young children to vote, especially if they don't know anything about who is running.

 

[Jam Stunna]

This past 8 years with President Bush hasn't exactly been a walk in the park...And every member of the federal legislature is directly elected.

So we should change the way that the federal government operates based on one bad presidency? Even the good ones appointed positions like the Supreme Court, federal attorneys, and cabinet members.

This is the same argument that has been used to support abolishing the Electoral College, that sometimes the popular vote and the electoral count don't match. People say that because that situation happens, the electoral college is obsolete. In fact, the popular vote has always been irrelevant, and it's only the electoral votes that matter. The electors are not required to bend to public opinion, and that is precisely why they are there. The electors serve as a check against democracy. There must be a safeguard against the passions of the moment, and the electoral college serves that purpose. I'm not sure if you've heard the term "yellow dog Democrats", but the electoral college was put in place to prevent the election of the metaphorical yellow dog.

That is because the opinions of people under 18 and felons are not highly regarded in mainstream society. It would be silly to allow criminals and young children to vote, especially if they don't know anything about who is running.

This is exactly the argument that I am trying to make: The American public is generally uninformed and cannot be trusted, by itself, to make an informed choice. Even after the intensive coverage of the primary season and the beginning of the general election contest, most Americans still are unfamiliar with both Barack Obama's and John McCain's positions on several issues.

These numbers are unchanged from early March. Even among Democrats, just 49% currently know at least a fair amount about Obama's foreign policy positions, while 50% know just some or very little.

Although John McCain has made foreign policy the centerpiece of his campaign, his positions on this subject are only slightly better known than Obama's. Currently, 45% say they know a lot or a fair amount about McCain's positions on foreign policy, while 53% know just some or very little. In March, somewhat more people said they were aware of McCain's foreign policy stances (52%).

Should those who are unable to actually name policy positions of presidential candidates be allowed to vote? Instead of disfranchising these people, the electoral college serves as a check against them, since they were not originally bound to the popular vote.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The electoral college also helps those in less sparsely populated areas. This map demonstrates population concentrations across the United States:

With a popular vote determination of the presidency, the entire western half of the nation (save California) becomes irrelevant. One of the more intriguing lines of this presidential race is the idea that Barack Obama can turn certain red states blue, such as Colorado (one of the reasons that the Democrats are holding their convention in Denver) and Montana. Without the electoral votes that those states enjoy under the electoral college system, they would become politically non-existent, along with the rest of the West.

EDIT- Map source: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/2kpopden.html

 

[Deleted member]

Overview:

It really is a shame that Byronman couldn't debate any further, because it was starting to pick up nicely.

As for the judging, it's completely arbitrary in this situation. I don't think there was a clear, definite winner yet, but because of Byron's schedule, Stunna will move on. Instead of giving actual score evaluations, I'll just give some critique, feedback, suggestions, whatever.

Byronman and Jam Stunna::

Puerto Rico is small. So were some of these posts!

Byronman, I can't stress enough that it looked like you had a lot to say. You should have said it! Your posts only fell short because, well, they were short. Had you elaborated and delved more into why 1:1 voting is the fairest in later posts, I think you could have easily taken this debate by storm.

Jam Stunna: Wow. Impressive. I thought GhostAnime justified the EC system well, but that population image is pretty convincing if you ask me. However, while perhaps unfortunately true, calling the US majority uninformed doesn't help your argument. It's a point against you, because if it was a 1:1 voting system, perhaps the politicians would make a bigger effort to try and reach every state. This is a minor point though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Anyway, it's just disappointing this had to end soon. Good job, I guess.

 

[Byronman]

Yeah I really do wish I could have finished this competition. It would have been interesting to see how far I would have got I will however, most definitely be going all the way through the next one.