12-2011+Debate+Negative

Here is my negative speech for the December 2011 debate. In this debate, my partner and I resolutely assert the resolution that the Electoral College should be upheld as opposed to using a direct popular vote. For future reference: Direct Popular Vote is a system of election wherein the elected candidate is chosen simply by which has the largest amount of popular votes (votes by the citizens) across the country. Electoral College is the system that the US is currently using for elections, where representatives for each state vote for the president, usually based on popular vote (although there is such thing as a “faithless elector”). Clearly, the idea of a direct popular vote is sentimentally sound, but faulty in its implementation, which is why the Electoral College should be upheld instead of replaced. This is why my partner and I would like to urge a negative ballot.
 * December 2011 Debate Speech**
 * Negative**
 * Contention One:** The practical value of requiring a balanced distribution of votes and support outweighs the sentimental value of a bare popular vote.
 * Subpoint A:** The distribution of support that the Electoral College creates greatly helps to balance elections. Using the direct popular vote, elections would simply be won by larger regions or groups. It would be domination of one populous region over the other, or of large metropolitan areas over small rural ones. With the Electoral College, no one region currently has the majority of the 270 electoral votes. This way, states like California, with a population of over 37,000,000, do not have much more relevance in the election than much smaller states like Rhode Island, with a population of only around 1,000,000 (populations for the US Census Bureau). All states can therefore be more equally represented in the election, despite their population and size.
 * Subpoint B:** The aforementioned requirement for distribution of support also helps to give minorities voice in election. Whereas with a bare popular vote minority voices and wishes would be drowned out by the large majority opinion, in the Electoral College minorities have the chance to sway the election. This is true because of the fact that the representative votes for each state are influence only by the opinions in said state. Minorities would not be large enough to defeat the majority across the nation, but they could be large enough to win over the majority voice in their state. If that happened, their state would then vote for their selected candidate (most likely), and they would be provided with a chance to alter the course of the election. This covers a wide group of people, too. It includes ethnic and religious groups, along with other social interest groups such as labor unions, farmers, and environmentalists. With a direct popular vote, none of these minorities would be heard. In this way, the Electoral College helps to mitigate the aptly named “Tyranny of the Majority” effect.
 * Subpoint C:** The Electoral College’s requirement for distribution of support also assures that a candidate needs widespread support to win the election. This prevents the event of a candidate from any particular state entering the election and winning solely on the votes from his or her home state. Without the Electoral College, numerous candidates could enter on their state’s own ballots and, if the state was large or powerful enough, simply win on that. However, because of the dividing of representative votes between the states, the Electoral College requires the candidate to earn nation-wide support to win. This also prevents numerous third parties from emerging in the election. They are still possible, as exemplified by candidates such as Ralph Nader, but they require large amounts of support to win. In this way, the Electoral College helps to push the two-party system that our country is currently using, as well as stabilize presidential elections.
 * Contention Two:** There is no need to get rid of the Electoral College.
 * Subpoint A:** The founding fathers implemented the Electoral College when our country was created because they thought it was the best and most efficient way to structure presidential elections. The system has stood strong for over two hundred years and over fifty elections, and it obviously works. There are only three cases were the Electoral College has failed to elect the popular candidate, and in these cases the difference in popular vote was small enough that either candidate would likely have been able to govern efficiently. The system is fair, efficient, and balanced, and has served us since our country began. There is no need to replace it.
 * Subpoint B:** There have been many suggestions put out as alternatives to the Electoral College, but in most all cases, the alternatives were far more flawed than the current system. As stated by Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, no system of election in a Democracy can satisfy all parties concerned (outside of a Dictatorship, and that would not be Democracy). However, compared to all alternatives, the Electoral College does the best job of satisfying the populous.
 * Contention Three:** Direct popular vote would be too easily compromised by third parties.
 * Subpoint A:** Without the Electoral College, the two party system we use today would be all but abolished, and there would be far to many radical third parties in every election. In a direct popular vote system, there would be every incentive for many different third party groups to form and try to interrupt the popular majority that would be required to win the election. The other candidates would then be forced to take stands on the extremist or regionalist views these parties hold in order to win the election. The result of this would be an unstable election system run by third parties that would tend to more radical and extremist views and issues.
 * Subpoint B:** Popular votes can be compromised and altered by other groups to suit their own needs. A perfect example of this is the hacking of electronic voting machines. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, this was a large issue. There is no evidence that it ever occurred, but it has been proven that results on electronic voting machines can be tampered with under lab conditions. That, along with the possibility of error, and other methods of altering the results, proves that the system for popular votes is not perfect. Relying entirely on such a system would mean that election results could easily be tampered with by third parties, or simply miscounted. The Electoral College does rely on popular vote to some degree, and these issues affect it as well, but the final result rests on the votes of the representatives, which are far more difficult to tamper with.
 * Subpoint C:** Another issue with direct popular vote is voter unawareness. This was actually an issue taken into consideration by the founding fathers when they created the Electoral College. A voter may not know much about any of the candidates, and therefore may simply choose a random name, or the candidate that is first on the list. In the Electoral College, all of the representatives have been interviewed and chosen beforehand, and are sure to have substantial knowledge of all the candidates and what they stand for. In this way, the final results of the election cannot be decided by those who know little about it.