You are on page 1of 5

Pro Case

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.
Definitions:
Direct Popular Vote

The vote for a candidate made by the qualified voters, as opposed to a vote made by elected
representatives (Merriam-Webster)

The United States is the only current example of an indirectly elected executive president, with
an electoral college comprising electors representing the 50 states and one federal district.

Electoral Vote

The traditional, intended system stated in Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-3 and the Twelfth Amendment
of the Constitution. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a
Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State
may be entitled in the CongressThe Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot
for President and Vice-PresidentThe person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall
be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.

The current procedures, altered by the emergence of the Two-Party System, is described as The
political parties (or independent candidates) in each state submit to the state's chief election official a
list of individuals pledged to their candidate for president and equal in number to the state's electoral
vote. Usually, the major political parties select these individuals either in their state party conventions or
through appointment by their state party leadersThe candidate for president with the most electoral
votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one vote over half of the total), is declared president.
(Federal Elections Commission)

Judge, the times have long changed since the days of our Founding Fathers. The creation of the
Democratic and Republican Parties have turned the Electoral College from a necessity to a mere formality.
The American population has grown exponentially since the 1700s, eliminating the potential of a supposed
mobocracy once feared by the Federalist Party. Thus, we stand in favor of this resolution.
Contention 1: The voice of the people is often unheard or distorted.
Article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to its
people. Merriam-Webster describes such a system as A government in which supreme power resides in a
body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to
them and governing according to law. Time and time again, the Electoral College has failed to uphold this
definition, thus defying the Constitution.
There have been numerous instances in American history where the will of the people were not
reflected by the electoral vote. In 1876, the Reconstruction-era United States, still recovering from the
turmoil of the Civil War, was in a deep economical crisis. Issues including tariffs and government scandals
presented the Republican Grant administration with a reputation that almost ensured a Democrat takeover.
On Election Day, it seemed as if the Democratic nominee Samuel J. Tilden had the upper hand over
Rutherford B. Hayes in the number of popular votes. However, a dispute over the electoral votes of South
Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana emerged, forcing congress to hold a special 15-member commission. The
commission voted to hand over the electoral votes of all three states to Hayes, making the less-popular
candidate become president. In 1888, Grover Cleveland won a majority of the popular votes but Benjamin
Harrison, winning the states with more electoral votes, became president. Again, in 2000, George W. Bush
lost to Democrat Al Gore by a margin of 500,000 popular votes; however his acquirement of enough
electoral votes still allowed him the position of presidency. The voices of 500,000 Americans were lost.

One of the greatest follies of the Electoral College was demonstrated in the Corrupt Bargain of
1824. In that year, no candidate won the majority of the electoral votes, and the decision was deferred to
the House of Representatives (as specified by the Constitution). Henry Clay, as Speaker of the House,
played a major role in supporting John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson, and thus the DemocraticRepublican candidate won the election. John Quincy Adams then appointed Clay as his Secretary of State,
hence instigating suspicions of a corrupt bargain. It should not be overlooked that Andrew Jackson, with
his Western war-hero status, had most of the popular support.
William C. Kimberling, deputy director of the Federal Election Committee, describes that the most
frequent reason for the election of a minority president is the third party candidate, who draws enough
electoral votes away from the two major party candidates so that no one wins the majority. This has been
recorded to occur 15 times in American History including the elections of 1912 (Wilson), 1948 (Truman),
1960 (Kennedy), 1968 (Nixon), and 1996 (Kennedy). Judge, as confirmed in these numerous precedents,
the Electoral College is dangerous in that acts as a barrier between the American public opinion and the
government.
The Federal Election Committee also draws attention to the fact that the Electoral College tends to
favor the Southern, rural states of the U.S. For example, in 1988, the combined voting strength of Alaska,
Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming was equal to that
of Florida (21 electoral votes). In addition, Section 1 of the 14 th Amendment guarantees American
citizenship to all people born within the states or territories of the United States. However, the National
Archives specifically mentions that the Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S.
Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President.
Judge, the evidences before you prove that the Electoral College fails to fully represent the American
People in its procedures.

Contention 2: Promotion of Apathy


A swing state, including Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, is one that no single major party has the
upper hand in acquiring its electoral votes. These states are also known as battleground states because
during the campaigns for presidential elections, they are usually heavily targeted. In Gary E. Bughs study
called Representation in Congressional Efforts to Amend the Presidential Election System, he notes that
during the last five weeks prior to the 2004 Election Day, both George W. Bush and John Kerry
continuously visited these swing states while utterly ignoring the others. Additionally, campaign
organizations put forth several millions of dollars worth of television advertising in these states, while paying
almost none elsewhere. This lack of attention to states known to historically support a certain party
negatively impacts voters by decreasing voter turnout, because its citizens already know who their Electoral
College members would vote for. Also those who would vote for the party opposite of what the state
supports realize that ultimately their opinions would not matter because of the Electoral College system.
For example, the highly disputed state of Florida, in 2008, had a voter turnout of 66.9%, while Texas, a
largely Republican state, had only 54.4% and New York, a largely Democratic state, had only 58.3%.
Since each state is entitled to a certain number of electoral votes regardless of the turnout, states
that support a single party have been known to even discourage voting in order to ensure that an upset
does not occur. Legal scholars Akhil and Vikram Amar state that The founders system encouraged the
continued disenfranchisement of women. In a direct national election system, any state that gave women
the vote would automatically have doubled its national clout. Under the Electoral College, however, a state
had no such incentive to increase the franchise.
Judge, as shown here, the lack of incentive to vote, brought upon by the Electoral College,
promotes a rule by the few type of government, a one that we as members of a republic should abhor.
Contention 3: Steps have been taken towards a direct popular vote system.

The National Popular Voter Interstate Impact is an agreement among several American states to
replace the current Electoral College system with direct popular vote. Currently, California, Washington,
Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Vermont have approved the
bill, their electoral votes accounting for 24.5% of the total number of Electoral College members. Article II,
section 1 of the Constitution, allowing each state to determine how to appoint its electors, guarantees its
constitutionality. Currently 2110 state legislators stand in support of the bill. In addition, a 2007 poll
conducted by the Washington Post reported that, 78% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 73% of
independent Party members were in support of conducting a direct popular vote for the presidency, instead
of the Electoral College system.
Conclusion
With a clear majority of Americans in favor of the direct popular vote system, it becomes clear that the
Electoral College is obsolete and outdated. The American Bar Association has even called the institution as
archaic and ambiguous, with 69% of national lawyers in favor of abolishing it. Judge, for these apparent
reasons we would like to urge you a pro ballot. Thank you,

You might also like