The Electoral College should be abolished is the topic of this debate. The Electoral College was created in September, 1787 after many arguments of how the president should be elected. Now with the Electoral College every four years, the states choose presidential electors (the same amount of their representatives for Congress). So if a candidate running for president received lots of votes from electors then he wins. Electing the president is not based on the citizen’s votes. Are votes as the people are just to give the electors an idea of what the citizens of that state want. Then they don’t have to pay attention to those votes. This topic is controversial because it is proposing equality vs. order. George C. Edwards III thinks we should
…show more content…
Edwards III is representing the pro side of this argument. One of his major arguments was that the Electoral College should pay attention and protect state’s interest. Citizens have interest also of who should be president. Presidents are supposed to pay attention to citizens not the states. Citizens make up the state, so if you do not have citizens you would not have states. Then if we were to get rid of the Electoral College; then the candidates would pay attention to other states more than they do now. They are more worried about the winner take all system that they ignore the state they already know their vote for them. Which disenfranchises voter who supported the losing candidates. This system favors some citizens over others, which denies some people their choice of president. There is no proper distribution of the vote. Lots of presidents, like President Bush, lost the majority vote but won the electoral vote. As Edwards states, “…’proper distribution’…This claim is nonsense.” Direct voting would increase turnout. Because the citizens would know their vote would actually count for …show more content…
Gregg II definitely lost this debate. His argument of we should keep the Electoral College because it works, was horrible! That like parents telling their kids when they are having an argument, “because I say so”. Sorry to say that argument is weak and it is saying that you do not have any valid reason of keeping this system. His other argument of that if you change the Electoral College there would be hidden consequences. Yeah it is true, there could be, but we will not know in less we try it. Those hidden consequence could actually benefit us. The argument it forces candidates to interact with the citizens is a lie. They only interact with the citizens of the states they are trying to win over. Because they already know the votes of the other states. Then the argument of it helps with recounts and litigation. Lots of citizens can not vote, so that decrease the number of people voting and you only have to do a recount if the election is close. But if a candidate winning the majority of the votes there would be no reason to
Edwards III is representing the pro side of this argument. One of his major arguments was that the Electoral College should pay attention and protect state’s interest. Citizens have interest also of who should be president. Presidents are supposed to pay attention to citizens not the states. Citizens make up the state, so if you do not have citizens you would not have states. Then if we were to get rid of the Electoral College; then the candidates would pay attention to other states more than they do now. They are more worried about the winner take all system that they ignore the state they already know their vote for them. Which disenfranchises voter who supported the losing candidates. This system favors some citizens over others, which denies some people their choice of president. There is no proper distribution of the vote. Lots of presidents, like President Bush, lost the majority vote but won the electoral vote. As Edwards states, “…’proper distribution’…This claim is nonsense.” Direct voting would increase turnout. Because the citizens would know their vote would actually count for …show more content…
Gregg II definitely lost this debate. His argument of we should keep the Electoral College because it works, was horrible! That like parents telling their kids when they are having an argument, “because I say so”. Sorry to say that argument is weak and it is saying that you do not have any valid reason of keeping this system. His other argument of that if you change the Electoral College there would be hidden consequences. Yeah it is true, there could be, but we will not know in less we try it. Those hidden consequence could actually benefit us. The argument it forces candidates to interact with the citizens is a lie. They only interact with the citizens of the states they are trying to win over. Because they already know the votes of the other states. Then the argument of it helps with recounts and litigation. Lots of citizens can not vote, so that decrease the number of people voting and you only have to do a recount if the election is close. But if a candidate winning the majority of the votes there would be no reason to