November Puff Affirmative

In the words of Alexander Hamilton, "Voting at elections is one of the most important rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law." Because my partner and I want to uphold the sanctity of voting put forth by Hamilton, we affirm the resolution. Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. To avoid any distortion of the resolutions true intent, my partner and I would like to define the terms for the purposes of debate: Direct Popular Vote is defined by Farlex dictionary as choosing a candidate for office in an organization by the vote of those enfranchised to cast a ballot According to article 2, section 1 of the US constitution, the electoral vote is The electors appointed by each state who formally elect the president and vice president of the United States. Replace is defined by Farlex dictionary to take the place of or substitute for somebody or something Contention 1: Popular vote promotes democracy. Subpoint A: The Electoral College depresses voter turnout. William Kimberling, Deputy Director of the Federal Elections Commission, states in the US Election Atlas, Each State is entitled to the same number of electoral votes regardless of its voter turnout, there is no incentive in the States to encourage voter participation. Indeed, there may even be an incentive to discourage participation so as to enable a minority of citizens to decide the electoral vote for the whole State.
(Citation: US Election Atlas, William Kimberling, http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php)

Moreover, with the use of the Electoral College there is less of an incentive to vote and therefore citizens are left feeling meaningless in terms of elections. With the use of the direct popular vote, each vote matters and allows the voters to be recognized. Subpoint B: The popular vote allows for the emergence of a third-party candidate. Kimberling furthers his argument, stating, The Electoral College fails to accurately reflect the national popular will [because it] stems primarily from the winner-take-all mechanism whereby the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes in the State wins all the Electoral votes of that State. One effect of This mechanism is to make[s] it extremely difficult for third party or independent candidates ever to make much of a showing in the Electoral College. If, for example, a third party or
independent candidate were to win the support of even as many as 25% of the voters nationwide, he might still end up with no Electoral College votes at all unless he won a plurality of votes in at least one State. And even if he managed to win a few States, his support elsewhere would not be reflected. By

thus failing to

accurately reflect the national popular will, the argument goes, the Electoral College reinforces a two party system, discourages third party or independent candidates, and thereby tends to restrict choices available to the electorate.
(Citation: US Election Atlas, William Kimberling, http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php)

Moreover, reinforcing the two-party system pushes away new ideas and discourages new options and reforms to our nation. With this, every election is a two-candidate race and the citizens opinions are not adequately reflected. Contention 2: The Electoral College is inconsistent and distorts the will of the people. The 12th Amendment to the US constitution only specifically mentions electors when it says The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President.
(US constitution, 12th Amendment, 1787, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendXII.html)

Further, according to the organization for election reform, 21 states do not require their electors to vote for the winner of their states popular vote, these states make up 238 out of the 538 electoral votes. The organization also states that electors from these states requirements frequently cast their ballots for an opposition candidate, while on some occasions electors from states WITH regulations also vote against their states popular vote, the most recent example being when an elector from DC did not cast her vote for Al Gore.
(Citation: Organization for election reform, July 13, 2009. State control of electors http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967)

Therefore, if electors have the ability to vote against the popular vote, then the voice of the average voter is not being represented proportionally because their state might not get the same proportional representation as another state. This causes votes to be less important, and the will of the people will not always prevail. Contention 3: The Electoral College system encourages candidates to focus only on battleground states. According to Paul Fidalgo, Communications Director of the Fair Vote Organization, With every passing election cycle, the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College becomes more and more apparent. Voters in a handful of states have an exclusive claim to political relevance, while a vast -- and growing -majority of Americans sit on the sidelines.
(The Swing States of America, Paul Fidalgo, Fair Vote Organization, http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=27&pressmode=showspecific&showarticle=254)

Therefore, presidential candidates are focusing the majority of their attention on the states that the electoral vote holds the most weight in; neglecting the states that they are fairly certain they can win a majority in. This causes a small percentage of the population to have a majority of the attention, creating a system where not all needs are met.