pro and con case.docx - Pro Case We affirm the resolution...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 9 pages.

Pro Case We affirm the resolution. Resolved: The United States ought to replace the Electoral College with a direct national popular vote. Contention 1: Topicality and Framework First, let us set somethings straight. According to dictionary.com, the word ‘ought’ in the resolution means: ["Ought." Dictionary.com . Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 12 May 2017.] used to express duty And the best way to prove that it is our duty to replace the electoral college, is by focusing on everything . Hence, the framework for this debate should be cost benefit analysis, which not only lets us clearly see which team better upholds the resolution, but also allows us to have a fair and educational debate. Which brings me to my next point, in order for this debate to be completely fair and function properly, we should not worry about the logistics of the implementation of the popular vote system. This gives the con team an inherent advantage, as we must prove that popular vote will happen AND the benefits outweigh the harms. In debate this is known as fiat. According to an article on Victory Briefs: [Briefs, Victory. "Three Common Misunderstandings of Fiat." Briefly . N.p., 01 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 May 2017] “Fiat” is a Latin word meaning “Let it be done.” In debate, “fiat” refers to a debater’s right to assume that her advocacy will happen. In other words, when a debater runs a plan or a counterplan, she does not have to argue that the plan is likely to happen. She needs only to argue that it would be net advantageous if the plan were implemented. To say that a plan is politically unpopular and therefore unlikely to pass is no answer. The basic logic is that in debate we want to argue about whether an advocacy is good or bad, not whether it is likely to be implemented. On the current topic, the Affirmative might argue that the United States should implement a single-payer healthcare system. The Negative may argue that this is a bad idea relative to the status quo or a competitive counterplan, but she may not argue “that would never get through Congress.” The Affirmative debater gets to fiat that the plan would pass congress. This notion is not entirely uncontroversial, and there are many complexities that are beyond the scope of this article, but the basic idea that a debater has a right to fiat her advocacy is widely accepted . In conclusion, in order to best follow the resolution and have a fair, educational debate, we must have a cost benefit analysis framework and should be able to fiat our advocacy, allowing us to forget about feasibility and focus on the true pros and cons of each system.
Contention 2: Voter Disenfranchisement The Electoral college disenfranchises voters—for two reasons: a) Free Agents Free agents risk disenfranchising millions of voters. Justin Curtis in Harvard Political Review explains: [Justin Curtis, “Recrafting the Electoral College,” Harvard Political Review , November 16, 2015, - proportional-electoral-college/] Moreover, instead of voting for the actual presidential candidates, Americans vote for their state’s electors, who in turn vote for the president.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture