args

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

Hi I would like to make this a Public Forum debate, where you argue mainly based on evidence. I hope that's ok because I usually debate in this style. The old saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" well, the side proposition says, "If our democracy is broke…. Fix it!" Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Definitions I would like to define direct popular vote as voting done by members of the public directly, through a system where all votes are considered in the final decision. I define electoral vote as the current voting system within the United States, where the members of the Electoral College represent each state vote for the presidency. As the proposition, I support the resolution for the 3 following reasons: -the system of Electoral College is inherently flawed -the system reduces American agency -Direct popular vote maximizes collective liberties. 1. The system of Electoral College is inherently flawed and must be discarded Sub point A the system right now does not follow the principles of democracy. A truly democratic government is one in which all people have an equal say in deciding who is to represent them. The Electoral College structure as it stands, essentially ignores the political will of the minority of any given state. Through a system of direct popular, similar political opinions from multiple states could band together to contribute to the over-all number of supported for their party. Unfortunately in status quo, the supporters of a particular party are isolated from their counter-parts in other states; reducing the overall value of their vote should they lose. This means that the voice of the 51% of the people is infinitely louder than the voice of the 49% which is fundamentally unfair. Source: (Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus) Sub point B many people do not agree with this system It is the opinions of the citizenry which matters most in regards to the method of democracy. Should the majority of Americans prefer an alternative system, than it would be entirely counter-intuitive to keep the current system. The vast majority of the Americans want direct popular vote. The real question isn't whether we should change the system to direct popular vote, but rather why is it that we have not changed it yet! We have to replace the Electoral College system with the direct popular vote. In Gallup polls going far as 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system. This meniscus percentage has not increased significantly since then. The people have spoken and it would be wise to listen. Source: www.nationalpopularvote.com/ Sub point C people will either stop voting or contribute to the polarized political culture of the United States The Electoral College awards electoral votes based on a winner-take-all method: the candidate with the highest number of votes in each state gets all of the state's electors. This causes millions of votes to be effectively uncounted. The sad reality is that if an individual lives in a state where the vast majority votes for a party that they do not support, there is absolutely no incentive to vote. When a person knows it is essentially impossible to have their vote make a difference, there really is no point in participating in the political process. This forces the politically passionate to physically move to another state if they want their vote to matter at all, which we think is entirely unreasonable. Even if they do move, we think this is not in the best interest of the country. When you only have vastly polarized states with highly segregated political opinions, this tends to further isolate citizens from the opposite party and heighten political tension between the parties which hurt the political process as a whole. Source: Michael E. McGrath explains why in "The Electoral College Inhibits Democracy,: written fro electionreform.org 2. This system selectively reduces the agency of marginalized American citizens The Electoral College system fails to show nation popular will In 2000, George W. Bush had 271 electoral votes and Al Gore had 266 electoral votes, but he had 50.2% of the popular vote while George W. Bush only had 49.8%. The narrowness of the results in California caused anarchy within the political structure resulting in a decision by the Supreme Court which was fundamentally undemocratic. Had a direct popular system had been implemented; the entire country could have distributed the hyper-burden placed on Florida, mitigating the problems caused by the political stress. Source: 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results, State Elections Offices, December 2001 3. Direct popular vote maximizes the democratic liberties of all Americans (John B. Judis concludes in "Shut down the College," written for the American Prospect) Eliminating the Electoral College and nationalizing presidential elections could promote the proper use of the 14th and 15th Amendments by guaranteeing that each citizen enjoys equal access to voting opportunities through uniform ballots and voting machinery, and the availability of polling places. The Electoral College prevents the United States from compliance with Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which calls for "...elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage..." as a basic, unalienable right of all mankind. The US is not alone in failing to comply with this universal human right.