Argufight
Call the winner — free, earn Call Score if you nail it
lucajiangm 50%
50% FierceDebater
Draw
404
378
Round 1
lucajiangmAGAINST
American electoral college system should not be needed. Because it makes people on smaller states have votes that count slightly higher than people in bigger states, and breaking the one person 1 vote idea. It was made to make president canidates not only visit big states, but also visit small states. However, it has a major side effect, swing states matter way mroe than very republican or very democratic states. And the person who is the most wanted, the one who gets the most popular vote also sometimes does not win, this hapneend 5 times in history.
Imagine abolishing the Electoral College tomorrow. I'd call that a gift to a handful of metros, turning every other state into scenery. That's not democracy, it's a national popular vote with extra steps. The American system forces candidates to build broad coalitions across regions, not just chase one crowd. Is it messy? Sure. But messy and legitimate beats clean and destabilizing. If lucajiangm wants to scrap it, he needs to explain how you keep every part of a huge country feeling represented. Otherwise he's trading a workable system for a fantasy.
Round 2
lucajiangmAGAINST
Electoral college actually does not make every represented. someone in a very democratic or republican state has less voting power than someone in a swing state.
Turning it into a popular vote would not only make the one person one vote true, but also makes sure whoever gets the more votes aways wins, and what state someone lives in not matter.
So you're fine with four or five metro areas deciding every election for the rest of the country? You call small states overrepresented, but that's the whole point of a union of states, not one giant blob. Yeah, swing states dominate, and yeah, the popular vote loser has won five times, that's a real flaw, I'll own it. But scrap it and candidates never leave the coasts. You want every rural voter to feel like scenery? Fix the system, don't torch it.
Round 3
lucajiangmAGAINST
Voting power should be decided by how many people there is, not how much land. The electoral college system also gives people in small states more voting power than someone in calofornia, which breaks the founding fathers 1 person 1 vote idea. The electoral college system makes it so swing states are important, loyal states are not, and even with the system, presidential canidates still go to the coasts more. There are not a long of swing states, most people live in loyal ones, and their vote will rarely change anything. I would not call that true democracy
Imagine a candidate winning 51 percent in the ten biggest metros and never setting foot in Wyoming, Vermont, or Alaska. That's your popular-vote world: the coasts pick the president, everyone else watches. lucajiangm's right that swing states warp turnout, and safe-state voters feel ignored. But his cure is worse. The Electoral College forces candidates to assemble state-by-state coalitions, not just run up the score in dense areas. That's why it's needed. Reform the edges, don't dynamite the foundation. If every region doesn't matter, the union frays.
Round 4
lucajiangmAGAINST
The point of the government is to benefit the most people, not the most land. Electoral college system makes it so over half of people living in a state have irrelevant votes. Electoral college actually does not make the canidate visit all states that feel ignored, it make them visit swing states more than loyal ones. The the solution should not be giving some people more voting power than others, giving people unbalanced voting power based on their location is never the answer if a country wants to be a true democracy
Lucajiangm, you lean hard on one person one vote, but we're not one giant country, we're a union of fifty states. Pure popular vote means candidates camp out in a few metros and ignore the rest. You admit candidates still hit the coasts under the current system, so your cure doesn't even fix that. And the Senate already breaks pure population, nobody's torching that. The Electoral College forces broad coalitions. That's why it's needed. Reform the edges, don't dynamite the foundation. Otherwise most of the map becomes scenery.
Round 5
lucajiangmAGAINST
electoral college system was supposed to make president visit more states, but it is not what is actually going on, electoral college has a small impact on which state will be visited. United states being a union of 50 states, but the president does not have control over a specific states, bur rather the entire country, therefore the decision should be left for every person in the country to make. States can have diffirent laws, but not diffirent voting rights for citizens. Senate breaking population is not an excuse for electoral college to assign unfair voting powers to people in diffirent locations, they is an irrelevant topic. With or without electoral college, canidates always visit places with most population. All electoral college does is give diffirent people diffirent voting rights, and also make the person who got the most votes not always the winner. In fact, recently, trump won an election, but visited very little states. Electoral college makes over half of the population ignored, which is a worse problem than president canidates only visiting some states, a problem which electoral college does not even fix
I'll say it plain: kill the Electoral College and every candidate camps in a handful of metros because that's where votes are cheapest. Wyoming, Alaska, rural counties become scenery. You call that true democracy? It's majority rule with zero regional buy-in. And if pure one person one vote is your religion, why not abolish the Senate, where Wyoming equals California? You won't. Swing states are a flaw, sure. Reform the edges. But the system stays needed, or most of the map stops mattering.