First, to address what the burdens are here –
Con stated in round 2 that “The description requires that I must defend “an electoral college in some form.” This is not accurate. The description states that “Con must, at minimum, prove that an electoral college in some form is better than direct election.” The description also states that “Pro must prove that we should substantially [alter] the norms of our elections and switch to a direct election.”
Con does discuss the proportional voting allocation method in Nebraska. I don’t see any discussion here about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) which is the mainstream method of Electoral College reform that’s in the works. If NPVIC was implemented it arguably would be a de-facto direct election which arguably would “substantially alter the norms of our elections and switch to a direct election” and an argument in favor of it could satisfy Pro’s BoP, save for the part about it being a “direct” election because it’s still indirect in the sense that the popular vote count is used by the states who they appoint electors and then the electors do the voting. Yet, there’s no talk of it.
Problem here is Pro and Con have different goal posts so to speak. What if Pro doesn’t meet his burden and neither does Con? What if they both meet their burdens? It’s almost like they’re not arguing for and against the same things due to the description.
Anyway while Pro has demonstrated the need for reform, Con’s rebuttal about the necessity for a constitutional amendment to accomplish that reform is persuasive. The constitutional amendment process is very burdensome. Switching to a direct election requires a constitutional amendment. Reform within the existing constitutional framework like Con suggests (e.g. proportional voting, or the conspicuously absent NPVIC) can accomplish much of the same goals without the burdensome amendment process which, as a practical matter, is politically challenging more so than it is procedurally.
Pro’s talk about slavery and the 3/5ths compromise and such, I don’t see how that’s relevant at all. This was pointed out by Con.
I don’t see much point to talking about faithless electors and the single voting authority argument. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election and when they do vote like that it’s usually been some no-impact political statement that changes nothing. Further, there is already a central voting authority and it’s congressional certification of election results and vote tabulation that happens in the senate. Yet, this all seems to be missed so I can’t consider it really.
What the current system really does is cause candidates to focus on battleground states and take for granted the states where the outcome isn’t going to make a difference. There’s not going to be any campaigning in California or New York, but there is going to be a lot of campaigning in Florida and Ohio. The voting power of a voter can perhaps be measured by the probability that a single vote will change the outcome of an election. While these probabilities are very low, they are orders of magnitude higher in battle ground states than they are in the non-swing states. If the popular vote was determinative, then every voter’s probability would be equal. That would be a lot more fair. Well this argument wasn’t there so I can’t really consider it. I’m just ranting.
Pro points to mistrust about Savant’s counterplan about gerrymandering and district setting. OK Savant’s counterplan doesn’t involve any gerrymandering. It’s simply proportional allocation based on state lines. Pro points out the unequal voting weight between states voting power. There is some unequal voting power but it’s not so bad really because the number of electoral votes is based on representation congress (house rep count plus senate rep count). So, voting power between each person isn’t too unequal as it is from the battle ground state // non-swing state analysis I described before which is a consequence of the winner take all system. I don’t consider these counter-arguments in my vote Im simply being expressive. Id imagine that Pro must really dislike the US Senate. One person in Wyoming gets the same representation as 67 people in California. Lame.
Why are we talking about Wallace? This is about as irrelevant as the 3/5ths compromise.
So at the end I’m looking at this: Pro needs to prove that we got to get rid of the electoral college. He’s got to prove that. What has Pro done to address Con’s counterplan of proportional representation? I don’t see any good arguments. The constitutional amendment process is arguably unduly burdensome in the USA. This makes Pro’s burden high. Pro’s arguments are like “I don’t trust Con’s motives” but there’s little analysis of Con’s proposals and arguments. Like this is almost ad hom. Most everything else irrelevant to the resolution in the description (e.g. 3/5ths compromise, Wallace talk) Centralization vs decentralization doesn’t have much of an impact. I suppose it’s a benefit to the electoral college in some degree.
Pro has not met his burden. But has Con met his?
“Con must, at minimum, prove that an electoral college in some form is better than direct election.”
See, Con’s burden does away with any analysis of the difficulty of changing from one system to the other. Because we are comparing the two systems we are not considering the difficulty of switching from one system to the other. In this way the analysis of considering whether or not Con has met his burden is different than the analysis of considering whether or not Pro has met his, as Pro’s burden explicitly required a “switch to a direct election”, thus requiring a constitutional amendment.
Con, show me that the electoral college is better than a direct election please, “in some form”. The form Con suggests is proportional electoral vote allocation. Why is this better Con?
Con’s arguments –
Accomodation of diverse factions –
OK. Rural vs urban. Talk about California. Why are we talking about how rural voters are supposedly given greater representation under the electoral college system and then talking about California rural voters who basically get less of a voice under the electoral college system than rural voters in other states with lower populations? This isn’t a rural urban thing. But what does Pro say about it? Seems to be a majority rule principle, one-man one-vote stance, a long with local control to the extent permitted under the federal system.
Preferring moderation to drastic political measures – This isn’t exactly relevant due to the comparison requirement I discussed before. Yet, the time-tested argument is relevant (i.e. it’s use for centuries is evidence of it’s stability) – The partisan divide argument is irrelevant to the burden analysis as again, we are doing a comparison of the systems. The cost of the change from one system to the other isn’t relevant.
Maintaining decentralized power –
Con claims recount costs. Anything from Pro on this? I see something about saying that states would still be in charge of tallying up all the votes thus the process would be decentralized, but no talk about the recount costs. Hmmmm.
Con points out the recount costs. Pro dropped this, largely. Frankly, recount costs aren’t that big of a deal, while they do still matter.
I haven’t seen persuasive arguments either way about why rural voters should have a greater voice than urban ones. Local control, yes, but on the other hand one man one vote. These arguments are equal in my eyes.
Con meets his burden, by the weight of a feather, on recount costs. Con merely must show that the electoral college is “better” – And better by an infinitesimal is sufficient to meet the burden.
My vote goes to Con. Many missed opportunities for Pro to win here IMHO, and NPVIC discussion would have been interesting.
Con stated in round 2 that “The description requires that I must defend “an electoral college in some form.” This is not accurate. The description states that “Con must, at minimum, prove that an electoral college in some form is better than direct election.” The description also states that “Pro must prove that we should substantially [alter] the norms of our elections and switch to a direct election.”
Con does discuss the proportional voting allocation method in Nebraska. I don’t see any discussion here about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) which is the mainstream method of Electoral College reform that’s in the works. If NPVIC was implemented it arguably would be a de-facto direct election which arguably would “substantially alter the norms of our elections and switch to a direct election” and an argument in favor of it could satisfy Pro’s BoP, save for the part about it being a “direct” election because it’s still indirect in the sense that the popular vote count is used by the states who they appoint electors and then the electors do the voting. Yet, there’s no talk of it.
Problem here is Pro and Con have different goal posts so to speak. What if Pro doesn’t meet his burden and neither does Con? What if they both meet their burdens? It’s almost like they’re not arguing for and against the same things due to the description.
Anyway while Pro has demonstrated the need for reform, Con’s rebuttal about the necessity for a constitutional amendment to accomplish that reform is persuasive. The constitutional amendment process is very burdensome. Switching to a direct election requires a constitutional amendment. Reform within the existing constitutional framework like Con suggests (e.g. proportional voting, or the conspicuously absent NPVIC) can accomplish much of the same goals without the burdensome amendment process which, as a practical matter, is politically challenging more so than it is procedurally.
Pro’s talk about slavery and the 3/5ths compromise and such, I don’t see how that’s relevant at all. This was pointed out by Con.
I don’t see much point to talking about faithless electors and the single voting authority argument. Faithless electors have never changed the outcome of an election and when they do vote like that it’s usually been some no-impact political statement that changes nothing. Further, there is already a central voting authority and it’s congressional certification of election results and vote tabulation that happens in the senate. Yet, this all seems to be missed so I can’t consider it really.
What the current system really does is cause candidates to focus on battleground states and take for granted the states where the outcome isn’t going to make a difference. There’s not going to be any campaigning in California or New York, but there is going to be a lot of campaigning in Florida and Ohio. The voting power of a voter can perhaps be measured by the probability that a single vote will change the outcome of an election. While these probabilities are very low, they are orders of magnitude higher in battle ground states than they are in the non-swing states. If the popular vote was determinative, then every voter’s probability would be equal. That would be a lot more fair. Well this argument wasn’t there so I can’t really consider it. I’m just ranting.
Pro points to mistrust about Savant’s counterplan about gerrymandering and district setting. OK Savant’s counterplan doesn’t involve any gerrymandering. It’s simply proportional allocation based on state lines. Pro points out the unequal voting weight between states voting power. There is some unequal voting power but it’s not so bad really because the number of electoral votes is based on representation congress (house rep count plus senate rep count). So, voting power between each person isn’t too unequal as it is from the battle ground state // non-swing state analysis I described before which is a consequence of the winner take all system. I don’t consider these counter-arguments in my vote Im simply being expressive. Id imagine that Pro must really dislike the US Senate. One person in Wyoming gets the same representation as 67 people in California. Lame.
Why are we talking about Wallace? This is about as irrelevant as the 3/5ths compromise.
So at the end I’m looking at this: Pro needs to prove that we got to get rid of the electoral college. He’s got to prove that. What has Pro done to address Con’s counterplan of proportional representation? I don’t see any good arguments. The constitutional amendment process is arguably unduly burdensome in the USA. This makes Pro’s burden high. Pro’s arguments are like “I don’t trust Con’s motives” but there’s little analysis of Con’s proposals and arguments. Like this is almost ad hom. Most everything else irrelevant to the resolution in the description (e.g. 3/5ths compromise, Wallace talk) Centralization vs decentralization doesn’t have much of an impact. I suppose it’s a benefit to the electoral college in some degree.
Pro has not met his burden. But has Con met his?
“Con must, at minimum, prove that an electoral college in some form is better than direct election.”
See, Con’s burden does away with any analysis of the difficulty of changing from one system to the other. Because we are comparing the two systems we are not considering the difficulty of switching from one system to the other. In this way the analysis of considering whether or not Con has met his burden is different than the analysis of considering whether or not Pro has met his, as Pro’s burden explicitly required a “switch to a direct election”, thus requiring a constitutional amendment.
Con, show me that the electoral college is better than a direct election please, “in some form”. The form Con suggests is proportional electoral vote allocation. Why is this better Con?
Con’s arguments –
Accomodation of diverse factions –
OK. Rural vs urban. Talk about California. Why are we talking about how rural voters are supposedly given greater representation under the electoral college system and then talking about California rural voters who basically get less of a voice under the electoral college system than rural voters in other states with lower populations? This isn’t a rural urban thing. But what does Pro say about it? Seems to be a majority rule principle, one-man one-vote stance, a long with local control to the extent permitted under the federal system.
Preferring moderation to drastic political measures – This isn’t exactly relevant due to the comparison requirement I discussed before. Yet, the time-tested argument is relevant (i.e. it’s use for centuries is evidence of it’s stability) – The partisan divide argument is irrelevant to the burden analysis as again, we are doing a comparison of the systems. The cost of the change from one system to the other isn’t relevant.
Maintaining decentralized power –
Con claims recount costs. Anything from Pro on this? I see something about saying that states would still be in charge of tallying up all the votes thus the process would be decentralized, but no talk about the recount costs. Hmmmm.
Con points out the recount costs. Pro dropped this, largely. Frankly, recount costs aren’t that big of a deal, while they do still matter.
I haven’t seen persuasive arguments either way about why rural voters should have a greater voice than urban ones. Local control, yes, but on the other hand one man one vote. These arguments are equal in my eyes.
Con meets his burden, by the weight of a feather, on recount costs. Con merely must show that the electoral college is “better” – And better by an infinitesimal is sufficient to meet the burden.
My vote goes to Con. Many missed opportunities for Pro to win here IMHO, and NPVIC discussion would have been interesting.