Have you ever wondered why the U.S. presidential election isn't decided by a simple popular vote? Why does a candidate who receives fewer votes sometimes end up in the White House? These questions bring us to a debate that's been raging for decades: Should the Electoral College stay or go?

Welcome to your Dinner Table Debates Daily Deep Dive where we explore real topics from our decks and give you everything you need to debate, in under 10 minutes. Today's topic is "The US should disband the Electoral College" and comes from the US Law category in our Full Size Essentials Collection deck. Let's Dig In.

The Electoral College isn't just a modern quirk of American politics - it's a system that's been woven into the fabric of U.S. democracy since the nation's inception. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise, balancing the desire for popular representation with concerns about giving too much power to the masses or to Congress. For more than two centuries, this unique mechanism has determined how Americans choose their president, but it's also been a lightning rod for controversy and debate. Fun fact, At least 10 other countries actually have an electoral college, but they don't function in quite the same way that the U.S. system does.

Some more background on how we got here. Direct popular election worried some Founders for several reasons. They feared that a purely democratic process might lead to the election of a populist demagogue aka rabble-rouser aka agitator aka (a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power) or that the general public might lack the information necessary to make an informed choice. There were also practical concerns about coordinating a nationwide popular vote in an era of limited communication and transportation.

The idea of allowing Congress to pick our president was proposed in the initial "Virginia Plan," and it was seriously considered. However, this was ultimately rejected due to concerns about the Separation of Power and ensuring the President remained independent from and unbeholden to the legislative branch aka the Senate and House of Representatives aka Congress.

The Electoral College emerged as a middle ground. It was designed to filter the popular will through a group of knowledgeable electors, addressing fears about an uninformed electorate and it gave states of all sizes a role in selecting the president, based partly on their population, which helped address the concerns of both large and small states.

Fun fact, Congress does actually have a role in the electoral process if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes. In such cases, the House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top three candidates. This has happened twice in U.S. history (1800 and 1824).

But this isn't just about how we count votes - it's about representation, the balance of power between states, and the very nature of American democracy. When we talk about disbanding the Electoral College, we're really asking fundamental questions about how our democracy should function and what it means for every vote to count.

Ok, but how does it work. Voters in each state choose electors to be part of the Electoral College. The number of electors each state gets is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress. There are currently 538 electors in total, and a candidate needs to win a majority of 270 electoral votes to become president.

It's crucial to discuss this because it affects every presidential election and has led to situations where the winner of the popular vote doesn't become president. This happened most recently in 2016 when Donald Trump won the presidency despite receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

Now, let's debate!

Agree (The US should disband the Electoral College):

1. The Electoral College goes against the principle of "one person, one vote." In the current system, a vote in a swing state like Florida or Ohio carries more weight than a vote in a solidly Republican or Democratic state. This violates the basic democratic principle that all votes should count equally.



2. The Electoral College can lead to presidents who didn't win the popular vote. This has happened five times in U.S. history, most recently in 2000 and 2016. I would argue this undermines the legitimacy of the presidency and goes against the will of the majority.



3. The current system encourages candidates to focus only on a handful of swing states, ignoring the needs and concerns of voters in "safe" states. A study by National Popular Vote found that in the 2012 election, two-thirds of general-election campaign events were in just four states.

Disagree (The US should not disband the Electoral College):

1. The Electoral College protects the interests of smaller states. Without it, candidates might focus solely on high-population areas, potentially neglecting rural areas and smaller states. This system ensures that presidential candidates must build geographically diverse coalitions to win.



2. The Electoral College helps maintain the federal character of the nation. The Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a republic of states, not a single national entity. The Electoral College reflects this by giving states a role in selecting the president.



3. Disbanding the Electoral College could lead to a fractured political landscape. In a direct popular vote, multiple candidates might run, potentially leading to presidents elected with a small plurality of the vote. The Electoral College typically produces a clear winner, promoting stability.

Now, let's explore some rebuttals.

For the first "Agree" point about one person, one vote, a rebuttal might go: While it's true that votes in swing states carry more weight in practice, the Electoral College actually gives smaller states more representation than they would have in a purely population-based system. Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population. This ensures that even the least populous states have a voice in the election.

For the second "Disagree" point about maintaining the federal character of the nation, you could argue: While the Founding Fathers' intent is important, our understanding of democracy has evolved. Many other federal systems, like Germany and India, elect their head of government through a national popular vote without compromising their federal structure. The U.S. could potentially do the same without losing its essential character as a union of states.

To sum it up, the debate over the Electoral College touches on core principles of American democracy, including representation, federalism, and the balance between majority rule and protection of minority interests. There are valid points on both sides, highlighting the need for careful consideration of any potential changes to this long-standing system.

Some alternatives have been proposed. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote. As of 2023, it has been adopted by 15 states and D.C., though it won't take effect until enough states join to control a majority of electoral votes.

Want to dig into this topic even more? Well, when you’re playing Dinner Table Debates at home, you can have Agree set the stage and choose how to define the debate. This means they can outline the terms, context, and interpretation, creating a unique and dynamic conversation every time. Here are some ways that Agree could redefine the debate topic “The US should disband the Electoral College”:

1. The US Should disband the Electoral College so that every vote counts equally and we prevent minority rule**: Does eliminating the Electoral College guarantee that every citizen’s vote carries the same weight, regardless of where they live? How much do you feel you like your vote matters based on where you live? Would this lead to a more democratic and representative election by making the popular vote the sole decider? 

1. The US Should disband the Electoral College because its outdated. The Electoral College was created to balance power between the federal government and the states, and to account for concerns at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. Are these concerns still relevant today, or has the evolution of American society and technology made the Electoral College irrelevant?

1. The US Should disband the Electoral College because we need to change how candidates campaign: How would disbanding the Electoral College change the way candidates campaign, focusing less on swing states and more on nationwide issues? Would this lead to a more inclusive approach to addressing the concerns of voters across the entire country?

Exploring these alternatives can broaden the debate, making for dynamic and compelling conversations that keep you discussing late into the night. 

If you enjoyed our deep dive, you can debate this topic and many others by getting your own Dinner Table Debates deck at DinnerTableDebates.com. It's a unique game because every round starts with randomly assigning agree or disagree, then you pick the topic, meaning that you might be debating for something you disagree with or vice versa. But that's the point! Stretch your brain, gain clarity, improve critical thinking and empathy, and have fun doing it! You can also join the debate on our Instagram and TikTok account. Get ready for some thought-provoking discu