Before moving on to case, I’d like to thank our judging panel for taking the time to judge this debate, especially since they are all still competing in LDS. And of course, a thank you is in order to Lucy who has provided a very debatable case that is topicial. You heard that right, no whiney T violations.
Let’s get it on.
No solvency. At all.
Text from the US Constitution: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”
Impact: The Supreme Court will shoot this plan down, as it clearly violates the Constitution. I want to remind you in her responce to #1 that she clearly states that the plan is Congressional legislation, and her plan text doesn’t call for a constitutional amendment. Allowing her to change her advocacy abuses me, as this whole arguement become moot.
So heck, by presumption, I’ve already won. But for fun, lets move on.
Let’s look at the criterion Lucy proposes. Hmmm, the case is lacking one. This kinda puts the Opp in a tight spot. Instead of being anal about prima facie burdens, I’m simply going to say the criterion is adherence to democratic ideals She certainly implies this is the case when she makes statements like “My contention is that the more voices that can be heard the better” and that her plan “upholds the ideal of democracy.” Note, do not let her suddenly change criterions. This completely abuses my ground because, again, she can render my whole speech moot by shifting advocacies and becoming a moving target.
The US Constitution will be amended through normal means so that the President is elected through the popular vote
Justification: This counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan as you can’t both keep the Electorial College and get rid of it too. Hence if you do plan, you can’t get the cool benefits of this counterplan, and that is enough reason to vote Opp.
Status: Unconditional. You are going to see this bad boy as a voter, right alongside no solvency.
Oh counterplan, how more deserving you are? Let me count the ways.
A: It solves! SC can’t shoot it down. Moreover, with the awesome communication technology of today, the origional justification for the Electoral College is eliminated. Vote counts aren’t delieved by horseback anymore; votes can be tabulated electronically almost instantly.
B: I solve Gov harms better:
Under 1st Contention:
- Under plan, it is still possible for a candidate to be elected while losing the popular vote as a delegate won with an amazing majority counts the same as a delegate barely one. CP guarantees 100% solvency.
2 and 3)More turns. Under plan, supermajorities can still silence minority voices. Under CP, one’s vote always counts as there is no such thing as a “locked” state.
1)Simply untrue. The Electoral College will always be a rough aproximation. America deserves better than a rough appoximation to determine its President.
2 and 3)Cross apply previous arguements. In a 3 electorial vote state, a party with less than 33% of the vote is silenced under plan.
1)Speaking of Nader, under plan, all votes for him still don’t count as they aren’t nearly significant. The counterplan allows votes for a 3rd party to count.
2 and 3)Cross apply previous arguments. CP solves better
According to the Electorial College, a person living in California is worth less than one fifth than a person living in Wyoming. A voter in California has less and one fifth the power of a voter in Wyoming.
This in unconsciousable.
This is dehumanizing.
In a democratic society, it is revolting that we continue a practice that makes one person “more equal” than another. A person from California is just as worthy a voter as a voter from Wyoming. To continue a practice that suggest otherwise in consciousable.
The true democratic ideal is one man, one vote. Without the counterplan, this ideal is never achived.
Vote Opp to make the US truly a democratic nation.