2011/2012 November PF Topic: Popular Vote v. Electoral College

Cost: 25.00

About the Product

Author(s) and/or Contributor(s): Saad Asad, Jessica Bailey, Eli Mallon, Adam Torson
Description: This book contains topic analysis essays that discuss important interpretations of the resolution and major Pro and Con positions, and evidence for both sides.

File Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY SAAD ASAD 6
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY JESSICA BAILEY 16
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY ELI MALLON 27
TOPIC ANALYSIS BY ADAM TORSON 35
FRAMEWORK EVIDENCE 46
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE I, SECTION I 46
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT XII 47
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT XXIII, SECTION I 48
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE’S PROCESS FOR ELECTING THE PRESIDENT 49
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 50
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE 51
PRESIDENTS WHO WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BUT LOSE THE POPULAR VOTE FACE SERIOUS LEGITIMACY PROBLEMS 51
PRESIDENTS WHO LOSE THE POPULAR VOTE COULD FACE A LEGITIMACY CRISIS THAT MAKES IT HARD TO GOVERN 52
PEOPLE PERCEIVE THAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, NOT ELECTORS 53
THERE ARE THREE WAYS THAT THE WINNER OF THE POPULAR VOTE CAN LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 54
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DISTORTS THE WEIGHT OF CITIZEN’S VOTES FOR PRESIDENT; A POPULAR ELECTION SYSTEM IS FAVORED BY MANY 55
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES DISPROPORTIONATE VOTING POWER TO CITIZENS OF STATES WITH MANY ELECTORAL VOTES 56
THE STATE-WIDE GENERAL TICKET SYSTEM OF SELECTING ELECTORS DISTORTS THE ELECTION PROCESS AND UNDERMINES THE PRINCIPLE OF ONE PERSON ONE VOTE 57
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE OVERWEIGHTS THE VOTES OF SMALL STATES 58
THE 2000 ELECTION DEMONSTRATES HOW THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE OVERWEIGHTS THE VOTES OF SMALL STATES 59
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CAUSES PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES TO FOCUS ON SOME STATES AND IGNORE OTHERS 60
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FAILS TO MEASURE THE EXTENT OF A CANDIDATES VICTORY WITHIN A PARTICULAR STATE 61
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES UNEQUAL WEIGHT TO VOTES DEPENDING ON THE TURNOUT IN A GIVEN ELECTION 62
IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, SOME VOTES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHERS 63
ELECTORS GENERALLY VOTE FOR THEIR PARTY’S CANDIDATE RATHER THAN EXERCISING INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE A FAITHLESS ELECTOR COULD CHANGE THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION 64
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALLOWS REGIONAL THIRD PARTY AGENDAS TO HIJACK THE MAJOR PARTIES 65
THE INCREASING PROMINENCE OF THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES MAKES THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MORE PROBLEMATIC 66
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT REFLECT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHEN THERE ARE MULTIPLE CANDIDATES IN THE ELECTION 67
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT ADVANTAGE MINORITY GROUPS 68
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF LEARNING ABOUT CANDIDATES FROM DISTANT STATES 69
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS OUTDATED ALMOST AS SOON AS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED 70
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS NEVER FULFILLED ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF PREVENTING UNIFORMED CITIZENS FROM EXERCISING TOO MUCH POWER 71
IT IS NO LONGER THE CASE THAT ELECTORS REPRESENT A WISE AND LEARNED SUBSET OF THE COMMUNITY 72
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM PRODUCES A REJECTION OF THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER AT RANDOM RATHER THAN ON A PRINCIPLES BASIS 73
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NO LONGER PLAYS A SUBSTANTIAL ROLE IN PRESERVING FEDERALISM 74
SMALL STATES WOULD GET MORE ATTENTION FROM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES UNDER A POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM THAN THEY DO UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLGE SYSTEM 75
POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT UNDERMINE FEDERALISM 76
UNDER THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WRITE OFF MANY STATES 77
FEDERALISM IS ABOUT MORE THAN ELECTIONS, AND THE FEDERAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES HAS SHIFTED IN RESPONSE TO MODERN PROBLEMS 78
THE SIZE OF STATES IS NOT VERY RELEVANT TO PEOPLE’S TRUE INTERESTS 79
IN THE MODERN ERA THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ALLOWS CANDIDATES TO FOCUS ON A SMALL NUMBER OF BATTLEGROUND STATES; INTERESTS ARE NOT PURELY REGIONAL 80
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ACTUALLY NARROWS THE FOCUS OF CAMPAIGNS TO BATTLEGROUND STATES, WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY ARBITRARY DISTRIBUTIONS OF POPULATION 81
EVEN IF THE CONSTITUTION PRIVILEGES REPUBLICANISM OVER DEMOCRACY, SUBSEQUENT STATE AND FEDERAL ACTION HAVE CHANGED FUNDAMENTAL POLITICAL NORMS 82
INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING SOLVES THE CONCERN THAT POPULAR ELECTIONS WILL PRODUCE CROWDED FIELDS OF CANDIDATES AND WINNERS WITH A MERE PLURALITY OF VOTES 83
A NATIONWIDE RECOUNT IS NO LONGER INFEASIBLE 84
A NATIONWIDE DIRECT POPULAR VOTE MAKES A RECOUNT LESS LIKELY 85
UNLIKE MOVING TO A POPULAR VOTE SYSTEM, THE DISTRICT PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF PERCEIVED ILLEGITIMACY WHEN THE WINNER OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE LOSES THE POPULAR VOTE 86
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE 87
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE ROLE OF THE STATES INSIDE A FEDERAL SYSTEM 87
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FOCUSES CAMPAIGNING ON THE STATES, WHICH IN TURN REINFORCES FEDERALISM 88
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PRESERVES FEDERALISM AND PREVENTS UNWIELDY NATIONWIDE RECOUNTS 89
DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE REDUCED TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE 90
A POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WOULD DISEMPOWER SMALL STATES 91
THE ADVANTAGE OF MINORITY GROUPS IN LARGE STATES IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HELPS TO BALANCE THE DISADVANTAGE OF SUCH GROUPS AND STATES IN CONGRESS 92
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BALANCES THE COMPARATIVE DISADVANTAGE OF LARGE STATES IN THE SENATE 93
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ENSURES BETTER REPRESENTATION THAN A DIRECT ELECTION SYSTEM BY TYING REPRESENTATION TO LOCAL POPULATIONS 94
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROTECTS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS FROM A VARIETY OF POLITICAL PITFALLS 95
DIRECT POPULAR ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WOULD SUBJECT THE PROCESS TO CRIPPLING FACTIONALISM 96
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM FORCES CANDIDATES TO TAKE A BROADER SET OF INTERESTS INTO ACCOUNT TO SECURE A COALITION 97
THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT DESIGNED TO CREATE A PURE DEMOCRACY 98
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GENERALLY EMBRACE THE PRINCIPLE OF ONE PERSON ONE VOTE 99
THE SENATE SHOWS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT EQUATE ONE PERSON ONE VOTE WITH DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY 100
THE CONSTITUTION IS UNDEMOCRATIC IN MANY WAYS 101
THE CONSTITUTION OFTEN DEPARTS FROM THE ONE PERSON ONE VOTE PRINCIPLE 102
VOTES ARE WEIGHED EQUALLY WITHIN COMMUNITIES, MEANING THAT PEOPLE DO NOT FEEL DISENFRANCHISED 103
LOSING THE POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT DELEGITIMIZE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE CAMPAIGNS MAKE DIFFERENT STRATEGIC CHOICES TO WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 104
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE POPULAR SUPPORT AND PREVENT THE RULE OF NARROW SELF-INTEREST 105
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS A DEMONSTRATION OF POPULAR SUPPORT; NO ELECTION MEASURES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE WITH PERFECT ACCURACY 106
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE LEGITIMIZES ELECTION RESULTS BY RESTRAINING ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT 107
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE CONTRIBUTES TO POLITICAL STABILITY 108
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM PROJECTS LEGITIMACY BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS WORKED FOR A LONG TIME 109
A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE DOES NOT GUARANTEE DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY 110
EMPIRICALLY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE ELECTION 111
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AUGMENTS THE LEGITIMACY OF THE SYSTEM BY MAKING CLOSE ELECTIONS MORE DEFINITIVE 112
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE PROVIDES A WAY OF LEGITIMATING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS GIVEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM 113
THE DANGER THAT A POPULAR VOTE WINNER WILL LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS OVERSTATED 114
IT IS UNLIKELY THAT PRESIDENTS WILL WIN THE POPULAR VOTE BUT LOSE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 115
A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE IS INFEASIBLE 116
THE CONCERN ABOUT FAITHLESS ELECTORS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORICAL ROLE PLAYED BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 117
FAITHLESS ELECTORS DO NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN EFFECTIVE VOTE 118
STATES MAY CONSTITUTIONALLY PRESERVE ELECTOR DISCRETION AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ADVANTAGES TO DOING SO 119
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE FORCES CANDIDATES TO SPEAK TO A WIDER POPULATION BASE 120
REGIONAL THIRD PARTIES WILL NOT HIJACK PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AGENDAS 121
DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT NEITHER UNDERMINES THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES NOR GIVES THEM TOO MUCH POWER 122
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT FORCE CANDIDATES TO PROMISE AN AGENDA SUITABLE TO LOCAL CONSTITUENCIES 123

——
*note: if you do not want to order online, and would prefer to send in your order using email, fax, mail or phone, download the ORDER FORM and print it for yourself.

If you have questions, please email help@victorybriefs.com or call 310-472-6364.