NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE
Public Forum Topic Analysis
November 2011
DISCLAIMER: This topic overview is provided by the National Forensic League to provide a basic foundation for
understanding the debate. It is not intended to be a definitive statement of the topic to be debated, to prescribe
what direction the debate should go, or to provide the “framer’s intent” for the topic. Accordingly, this topic
overview should not be quoted or referred to in any actual debate round.
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote
in presidential elections.
The United States’ system for electing the President is commonly known as the Electoral College.
Unlike a direct democratic vote, the Electoral College uses representatives from each state (from
both the U.S. House and Senate) to cast their votes for President. These representatives are known
as electors; there are a total of 538 electors, with the 435 members of the House, the 100 members
of the Senate, and three electors for Washington, D.C. Electors can theoretically deviate from the
popular vote, a scenario known as a “faithless elector;” however, such a scenario has rarely been
realized, and never in a fashion that could change the outcome of the election.
While most states have a winner-take-all scenario, in which the candidate with the majority of the
state’s votes receives all of its electoral votes, some states have already moved or are proposing to
move to other models. For example, a popular proposal would award electoral votes proportionally,
matching the percentage of votes in the state to a corresponding percentage of its electoral votes.
Critiques of the Electoral College abound, particularly in light of elections like that in 2000, in which
George W. Bush won the election despite receiving fewer votes than Al Gore across the nation. As a
result of the 2000 election and other scenarios, many have proposed a popular vote for the
President, wherein the candidate with more total votes across the nation would be elected President.
Pro
Direct popular vote would maintain equal representation
While proponents of the Electoral College claim it gives equal balance to smaller states, the system
currently favors “swing states,” giving attention and power to states seemingly up for grabs.
Meanwhile, states that consistently vote for one party, such as California for Democrats or Texas for
Republicans, are taken for granted; Presidential candidates visit those states less often and invest less
in advertising, debates, and activities therein. Swing states, on the other hand, receive ample
attention, even if they are rather small, since they can help a candidate gain ground. A direct popular
vote would give equal representation to all states and regions, not just those that are highly
contested. While smaller states may receive less attention than is currently normal, they could not
be entirely ignored because together they comprise a sizable portion of the U.S.
All citizens’ votes would count
As it stands, many citizens’ votes scarcely matter in the Electoral College. Imagine, for example, a
Democratic voter in Texas, a state consistently favoring Republican candidates for President. In a
winner-takes-all system, that Democratic voter’s ballot will not matter if the state goes Republican.
Particularly in entrenched states, wherein one party consistently wins, voters of the opposing party
have less incentive to participate, knowing their vote will likely have no impact whatsoever on the
overall election outcome. In a close election, nearly half of a state’s voters could be essentially
eliminated from the election calculus when their party loses the state’s vote. Under a popular
election model, even if a voter’s party did not win the majority in their home state, that voter’s ballot
would still impact the overall election, thus providing a voice for those in political minorities.
The people’s will would be honored
The possibility of faithless electors highlights a major flaw in the Electoral College: the American
public does not explicitly have the power to elect the President. While some states have made laws
essentially banning faithless electors, electors in most states could still choose not to reflect the will
of the people. While electors rarely deviate from their state’s election results, even the possibility
undermines the certainty of democratic rule. Should, for example, a corrupt regime arise, it could
take and retain power simply by swaying electors. While such a scenario may seem far-fetched, it is
currently possible. Under a direct popular vote, citizens would have the final say in the election of
President, ensuring a nation by and for the people.
A minority-vote President could not be elected
Under the Electoral College, a President can be elected without garnering a majority of the nation’s
votes. This mainly happens because whether a candidate wins by one vote or one million votes in a
state does not matter. A candidate could theoretically be elected with far less than 50% of the total
vote by winning the largest states by a very small margin. There have been three minority vote
Presidents in American history: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush. The
prospect of a minority-vote President fundamentally undermines democratic principles; a popular
vote for President could eliminate such a possibility.
Technology has diminished the need for the Electoral College
The Electoral College was created, in part, because information could not spread quickly enough to all
voters to create an informed decision. Today, particularly with electronic media, voters in every state
are keenly aware of important election figures months before elections take place.
Con
All states and regions are represented under the Electoral College
The Electoral College provides all states the ability to matter in a Presidential election. The United
States is a federation, meaning each state has independent abilities and duties. The framing of the
Constitution seemingly asserts the need for states to have a say in the election of the President. The
Electoral College allows each state to have some power in the election, whereas a direct popular vote
very well may not; for example, California’s population, at nearly 37,000,000, is nearly 74 times that
of Wyoming, with a population of around 500,000. Without the Electoral College, the state of
Wyoming may feel (and in all practicality be) void of any relevance in a Presidential election.
Minority voices can be heard
In the Electoral College, minorities, whether political, ethnic, religious, etc. can impact the election
more significantly than under a popular vote. Should minority voices impact a swing state’s total vote
enough to shift the overall electoral result, their voices could reach national significance. While the
majority still makes decisions, the minority’s rights are protected because they cannot simply be
drowned out by tens of millions of majority votes across the entire nation. The winner-take-all
system can actually enhance the democratic principle of majority rule, minority rights by ensuring the
majority across the nation is not the only voice heard in the election.
The Electoral College requires widespread support
The founders of the United States were particularly concerned with a candidate from any particular
state being elected solely from votes in his or her home state. Today, such a concern is still relevant:
without the Electoral College, myriad candidates could enter the election on their states’ ballots, with
one from a large and powerful state potentially garnering enough votes to be elected. The two-party
system, entrenched by the Electoral College, focuses the nationwide debate. Third parties can be
viable, as evidenced by candidates such as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, but only if they achieve
widespread support. The Electoral College ensures the need for candidates to demonstrate
nationwide appeal, since they are technically elected by states.
The Electoral College provides a check against mob rule
The concern of mob rule in democracy spans as far back as the Greek society. When the majority has
unlimited power, it can essentially become a force of oppression or control. The trial and death of
Socrates are typically mentioned as the best examples of mob rule, yet a variety of other examples
exist. The majority should, in a democracy, have the ability to rule, but not the ability to rule without
any checks. The Electoral College provides a check against poor or unjust decisions made by the
public. The short list of faithless electors shows that deviating from the majority will is not taken
lightly—electors would not deviate unless compelled by a major concern over the majority’s decision.