Is the US governments presidential voting system bad? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is the US governments presidential voting system bad?
in Politics

By NopeNope 327 Pts
I am not very well educated in politics ( I am only 15) but that seems to be where many debates are. I think I know enough to make a valid augment in saying it should be greatly approved. What do you think?
walterbajoecavalry
  1. Is the US governments presidential voting system bad?

    12 votes
    1. none of the above
        8.33%
    2. Yea
      41.67%
    3. I need to do more thinking
        8.33%
    4. Where is my answer. IT IS NOT HERE?
        8.33%
    5. No, It is fine the way it is
      33.33%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • No, it is fair and represents many or all citizens.
  • walterba Base on states. Why should people in Wyoming have more of a voice then those in California by more than tree times. You live in Wyoming and your vote beets 3 Californian votes. 
    Fascism
  • C1: Regional Differences
    A. The electoral college is excellent in giving smaller states representation in an election. Without the electoral college smaller states would be irrelevant in an election, and candidates would ignore them. The electoral college lets the less populous states in the middle of our country get a voice in our country.

    B. For example, in 2012 a topic in the election was military bases, key issues in florida and south carolina. Without the electoral college this topic, along with many others, would be dwarfed by the issues that californians or new yorkers consider important.

    C. A big issue in the 2016 presidential election was police shootings and violence, which is a big problem in only a few states, but the electoral college forced this pressing issue to be acknowledged. The states where this is an issue has an electoral vote, and this vote causes the candidates to acknowledge this. 

    D. The majority of this nation’s population in democratic party, and because of this the republican party would lose much of it’s power. This creates a president that is not receptive to the republican part of the population.

    C2: Better Candidates
    A. The electoral college creates better candidates that are more aware of the places in the united states. The create candidates that are more on the middle of the spectrum instead of the ends, which is what a popular vote would create.

    B. If we were under a popular vote democratic candidates could only focus on the costs, and the republican candidates could only focus on the south. This creates very extreme candidates that would not be responsive to the other part of our population. This, of course, is not an advantage because a part of the population would feel oppressed for 4 years or more.

    C. The electoral college leads to candidates being more moderate, which leads them to be more receptive to the population as a whole. This is good overall because the entire population would feel at least a little represented in the population, and none would feel completely ignored. 

    C3: Pure Democracy is Not Advantageous
    A. The united state is not a democracy, we are a Federal Republic. A popular vote would be completely democratic, and that is simply not what the US is. The Electoral college is the perfect mix between democracy and a republic.

    B. A pure democracy leads quickly to anarchy. A group with a large population would rule the rest of the population, which leads to an oppressed minority. Oppression is never good, and almost always leads to conflict, as seen in Iran or in the American civil war.

    C. Our founding fathers were scared of a strong state that would create a dictatorship, the youngest child learns this from school. Lesser known was that they also fear anarchy, which they believed lead from democracy. The electoral college is part of the balance that they created.

    C4: Efficiency
    A. The electoral college rarely makes mistakes, and when it does the problems are easy to isolate and fix. A popular vote is messy, and because of this the result of the election would take longer to realise, and mistakes are very hard to fix. If the result may be flawed would necessarily have to have another election. Counting popular votes is very messy.
    dude865
  • America has become an oligarchy. The rich people pay the politicians so that the politicians can win. This gives the power to the rich. 

    Statistics show that if you're running for presidency, if you have the highest amount of donations compared to every single other candidate, you have a 50% chance of winning. 

    Even worse is that the rich people sometimes bribe the politicians to change their policies. For example, if a politician likes abortion, affirmative action, and marijuana, but a rich person doesn't like abortion, likes affirmative action, and likes marijuana, then the rich person can say to the candidate: "Hey I'll give you donations if change your policy on abortion. Become pro-life." The politician can either change his policy, or have another candidate take the offer. This is an oligarchy. Government controlled by the few elite. 

    Statistics show that if you're running for a representative or a senator, the same thing applies. The people who are given more donations are more likely to win. In fact, it's even worse for these positions than the presidential ones. 

    America is run by the rich in an oligarchy. 
    dude865THEDENIER
  • MissDMeanor You made a well designed argument. My problem is this:
    A.) State in which are considered safe states often don't matter. Candidates from both party's won't normally care about safe states. They only care about swing states.
    B.) The voting system was designed in a different time. Some of the problems it was made to help don't occurs anymore. Like North vs South in terms of slavery. Slavery is gone now.
    C.) Like I said people in California have less then 30% of the voice as people in Wyoming do in presidential votes. It is possible for a candidate to get less than 25% of the votes and win.
    D.) The Votes of a sate can go agents that of the popular vote. Zero people can vote for a candidate in a sate and that sate can still vote all for that candidate. How does that even make sense?
    E.) 49.9999% of the people of a sate can vote for one candidates and there votes don't really count in the final sate votes. That is like 19.5 million people not making a difference in one sate.
    So now it is time to consider the pros and cons of the system and ask the question is do the benefits out way the negatives?
    I hope I used appropriate terms, spelling and gamer. : )
    dude865Fascism
  • Fascism said:
    America has become an oligarchy. The rich people pay the politicians so that the politicians can win. This gives the power to the rich. 

    Statistics show that if you're running for presidency, if you have the highest amount of donations compared to every single other candidate, you have a 50% chance of winning. 

    Even worse is that the rich people sometimes bribe the politicians to change their policies. For example, if a politician likes abortion, affirmative action, and marijuana, but a rich person doesn't like abortion, likes affirmative action, and likes marijuana, then the rich person can say to the candidate: "Hey I'll give you donations if change your policy on abortion. Become pro-life." The politician can either change his policy, or have another candidate take the offer. This is an oligarchy. Government controlled by the few elite. 

    Statistics show that if you're running for a representative or a senator, the same thing applies. The people who are given more donations are more likely to win. In fact, it's even worse for these positions than the presidential ones. 

    America is run by the rich in an oligarchy. 
    This statement I think must be taken with a huge grain of salt because of the issue he presents. As a scholar of statistics myself I would certainly like to see the statement provided that you have a 50% chance of winning. I would also like to make sure this statistic is based of an controlled experiment, and not a observational study as observational studies may show correlation but do not show causation. Since the burden of proof is on the person who made this statement. We must disagree becuase he has not provided any evidence proving America is an oligarchy.
    Fascism

  • D. The majority of this nation’s population in democratic party, and because of this the republican party would lose much of it’s power. This creates a president that is not receptive to the republican part of the population.
    Actually, the majority of voters, by a substantial percentage, are independent;

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
  • @dude865 ;
    Statistics for house of reps:
    http://letsfreecongress.org/
    https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472099213-ch8.pdf

    Statistics for presidential elections:
    https://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472099213-ch8.pdf

    Correlation doesn't imply causation, but causation can still exist. 
    In some observational studies it is true that the correlation is far from related, such as "ice cream causes polio". However, in other cases the correlation can be a causation as well. In older people, arthritis is more common since the bone is worn out more. If someone does an observational study on this topic, he can conclude that older people generally have more arthritis, since it is already a known fact that older people have weaker joints. He just does the observational study as a confirmation that arthritis is also involved in this. 
    So completely ignoring observational studies is not valid. Meaningful conclusions cannot always be drawn from observational studies, but sometimes the causation is clear and unmistakable. 

    Example of causation regarding my argument:
    A bill was proposed which stated that people should have a background check before they can buy a gun, after the Sandy Hook Shooting. 90% of the population supported this bill to pass. However, this bill didn't pass. The senators who weren't in favor of the bill were given money by (guess who) the National Rifle Association. 
    This isn't the only case in which policies were manipulated by campaign money. 

    1% of the US population funds 68% percent of the campaign money. Politicians want to make sure that they can raise enough money to win the next election so they accept to the policies that these rich people want. It is usually to support corporations. This is legal bribery. Legal corruption. 

    This, by definition, is an oligarchy. 
    Nope
  • @CYDdharta
    I made that argument before the 2016 run, than the democratic party had more votes. 

    @Nope
    A) Of course swing states are not ideal, but are they really as bad as you make them out to be? If we look at voter statistics in swing states, then we can see that swing states also have advantages.

    If we look into the voter composition of the voters in swing states you can see that the composition is much more equal than other states. If we look at Wisconsin, you can see that 48% of votes went to Donald Trump and 47% to Hillary Clinton in this latest election. You guys can explore that map more if you wish, but my point is that the parties are very balanced in these states. Every vote in these states matter, so as a result the candidates will try to appeal to people of both parties. This leads to less extreme candidates.

    Voter turnout in swing state is higher than non-swing states. People in swing state have a higher political education, because they know their vote counts. These are both advantages of swing states. In conclusion, swing states may not be great, but they have their advantages. No system is perfect

    B) And new problem have risen, like farmer rights to water and other resources. Geothermal energy sources. It balances out.

    C) There are a lot of possibilities, does a possibility make an idea inherently wrong? A 25% popular vote win will not happen, it is nearly impossible.

    D) It CAN happen, but it doesn't. The same logic from part C applies. Many states give their votes to the candidate in the majority. 

    E) In a popular vote system a candidate can win by a margin of .01%, so the other 49.99% of voters votes were all a waste. This problem is not unique to the electoral college.

  • @MissDMeanor I don't think that election accurately represents a reflection of the electorate.  Trump was more of an independent candidate running on the Republican ticket than he was a Republican candidate.  There was a well-funded and very vocal never-Trump movement within the party.  Trump had to fight his opponent, his own party's leadership, and a mainstream media that had vowed to keep him out of the White House.  If the majority of this nation’s population in democratic party, than why do 67 million more Americans live in states with Republican governors than Democrat governors?


  • MissDMeanor
    For point D.) yes it is highly unlikely. Why not make it impossible. It won't effect much of are voting system. A system with less flaws is better then a system with flaws that have not been taken advantage of yet. My problem with swing states is that they have those advantages that non swing states don't have. Campaign their, education them their, have a bigger impact on the election their. People care more about their vote then mien. : ( For point E. it is different, scene states tend to vote all for one candidate 49% would not count in the final vote. They can't help push a candidate to victory. In a popular voting system they will help push a candidate to victory. You are right no voting system is perfect. By I do believe it can greatly improve. I never said excitedly the improvements I wanted to make. : )
  • Nope said:
    MissDMeanor
    For point D.) yes it is highly unlikely. Why not make it impossible. It won't effect much of are voting system. A system with less flaws is better then a system with flaws that have not been taken advantage of yet. My problem with swing states is that they have those advantages that non swing states don't have. Campaign their, education them their, have a bigger impact on the election their. People care more about their vote then mien. : ( For point E. it is different, scene states tend to vote all for one candidate 49% would not count in the final vote. They can't help push a candidate to victory. In a popular voting system they will help push a candidate to victory. You are right no voting system is perfect. By I do believe it can greatly improve. I never said excitedly the improvements I wanted to make. : )
    In a popular vote, no one would campaign outside of the cities.  Rural voters and their concerns would by completely neglected.
  • MissDMeanor Wait a minute! I am to young to vote of course my vote matters not. I meant my familiars vote matters less then swing states votes. CYDdharta Most people live in city's. Is it different from ignoring most states a lot of which have more people. Second I never said I wanted a popular vote. : )
  • Nope said:
    MissDMeanor Wait a minute! I am to young to vote of course my vote matters not. I meant my familiars vote matters less then swing states votes. CYDdharta Most people live in city's. Is it different from ignoring most states a lot of which have more people. Second I never said I wanted a popular vote. : )
    We don't live under mob rule, at least not yet.  Cities currently get the vast majority of attention, but people living in rural areas still get some representation, as is only right.

    Second; perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to suggest a popular vote;

    Nope said:
    In a popular voting system they will help push a candidate to victory. You are right no voting system is perfect. By I do believe it can greatly improve. I never said excitedly the improvements I wanted to make. : )

  • CYDdharta I said that because I was responding to a comment where MissDMeanor mentioned popular votes. That is why I talked about them. Sorry for being misleading. : )
  • The US government’s presidential voting system and voting system is not bad due to it letting all or most US citizens vote.
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • joecavalry True but all votes are not treated equal. Allowing most people vote is a quality of a good voting system, their are other quality in a good voting system in which the US voting system does a bad job. One quality does not make a system good.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch