# data[].attributes.body
I believe The Government should not ban good people from getting/owning an AR.
I also Believe The Government should not Defund the police, but they shouldn't have the same level of power that they currently abuse from time to time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over the continued use of the Electoral College resurfaced during the 2016 presidential election, when Donald Trump lost the general election to Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 million votes and won the Electoral College by 74 votes. The official general election results indicate that Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and 46.09% of the popular vote (62,984,825 votes), and Hillary Clinton received 227 Electoral College votes and 48.18% of the popular vote (65,853,516 votes).

Prior to the 2016 election, there were four times in US history when a candidate won the presidency despite losing the popular vote: 1824 ( John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson), 1876 ( Rutherford B. Hayes over Samuel Tilden), 1888 ( Benjamin Harrison over Grover Cleveland), and 2000 ( George W. Bush over Al Gore).

The Electoral College was established in 1788 by Article II of the US Constitution, which also established the executive branch of the US government, and was revised by the Twelfth Amendment (ratified June 15, 1804), the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified July 1868), and the Twenty-Third Amendment (ratified Mar. 29, 1961). Because the procedure for electing the president is part of the Constitution, a Constitutional Amendment (which requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress plus approval by 38 states) would be required to abolish the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College as a compromise between electing the president via a vote in Congress only or via a popular vote only. The Electoral College comprises 538 electors; each state is allowed one elector for each Representative and Senator (DC is allowed 3 electors as established by the Twenty-Third Amendment).

In each state, a group of electors is chosen by each political party. On election day, voters choosing a presidential candidate are actually casting a vote for an elector. Most states use the "winner-take-all" method, in which all electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the popular vote in that state. In Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the state's overall popular vote receives two electors, and one elector from each congressional district is apportioned to the popular vote winner in that district. For a candidate to win the presidency, he or she must win at least 270 Electoral College votes.

At least 700 amendments have been proposed to modify or abolish the Electoral College.

On Monday Dec. 19, 2016, the electors in each state met to vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Of the 538 Electoral College votes available, Donald J. Trump received 304 votes, Hillary Clinton received 227 votes, and seven votes went to others: three for Colin Powell, one for Faith Spotted Eagle, one for John Kasich, one for Ron Paul, and one for Bernie Sanders). On Dec. 22, 2016, the results were certified in all 50 states. On Jan. 6, 2017, a joint session of the US Congress met to certify the election results and Vice President Joe Biden, presiding as President of the Senate, read the certified vote tally.

A Sep. 2020 Gallup poll found 61% of Americans were in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, up 12 points from 2016.

For the 2020 election, electors voted on Dec. 14, and delivered the results on Dec. 23. On Jan. 6, 2021, Congress held a joint session to certify the electoral college votes during which several Republican lawmakers objected to the results and pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol sending Vice President Pence, lawmakers and staff to secure locations. The votes were certified in the early hours of Jan. 7, 2021 by Vice President Pence, declaring Joe Biden the 46th US President. President Joe Biden was inaugurated with Vice President Kamala Harris on Jan. 20, 2021.

Should the United States Use the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?

Pro 1

The Electoral College ensures that that all parts of the country are involved in selecting the President of the United States.

If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win the election, presidential candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country.

Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized.

Tina Mulally, South Dakota Representative, stated that the Electoral College protects small state and minority interests and that a national popular vote would be ""like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." Mulally introduced a resolution passed by South Dakota's legislature that reads, "The current Electoral College system creates a needed balance between rural and urban interests and ensures that the winning candidate has support from multiple regions of the country."
Read More

Pro 2

The Electoral College was created to protect the voices of the minority from being overwhelmed by the will of the majority.

The Founding Fathers wanted to balance the will of the populace against the risk of "tyranny of the majority," in which the voices of the masses can drown out minority interests.

Using electors instead of the popular vote was intended to safeguard the presidential election against uninformed or uneducated voters by putting the final decision in the hands of electors who were most likely to possess the information necessary to make the best decision in a time when news was not widely disseminated.

The Electoral College was also intended to prevent states with larger populations from having undue influence, and to compromise between electing the president by popular vote and letting Congress choose the president.

According to Alexander Hamilton, the Electoral College is if "not perfect, it is at least excellent," because it ensured "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Democratic Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak vetoed a measure in 2019 that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would have obligated the state's electors to vote for the popular vote winner. Governor Sisolak stated, the compact "could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada's electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose."

Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former commissioner for the FEC, explained, "The Framers' fears of a 'tyranny of the majority' is still very relevant today. One can see its importance in the fact that despite Hillary Clinton's national popular vote total, she won only about a sixth of the counties nationwide, with her support limited mostly to urban areas on both coasts."
Read More

Pro 3

The Electoral College can preclude calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections, giving certainty to presidential elections.

If the election were based on popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to receive the highest number of popular votes without actually obtaining a majority.

This happened with President Nixon in 1968 and President Clinton in 1992, when both men won the most electoral votes while receiving just 43% of the popular vote. The existence of the Electoral College precluded calls for recounts or demands for run-off elections.

Richard A. Posner, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, further explained, "There is pressure for runoff elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner."

The electoral process can also create a larger mandate to give the president more credibility; for example, President Obama received 51.3% of the popular vote in 2012 but 61.7% of the electoral votes.

In 227 years, the winner of the popular vote has lost the electoral vote only five times. This proves the system is working.
Read More

Con 1

The Electoral College gives too much power to swing states and allows the presidential election to be decided by a handful of states.

The two main political parties can count on winning the electoral votes in certain states, such as California for the Democratic Party and Indiana for the Republican Party, without worrying about the actual popular vote totals. Because of the Electoral College, presidential candidates only need to pay attention to a limited number of states that can swing one way or the other.

A Nov. 6, 2016 episode of PBS NewsHour revealed that "Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have made more than 90% of their campaign stops in just 11 so-called battleground states. Of those visits, nearly two-thirds took place in the four battlegrounds with the most electoral votes - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina."

Gautam Mukunda, political scientist at Harvard University , explained that states are given electors based on its representation in the House and Senate, so small states get extra votes. Mukunda stated, "The fact that in presidential elections people in Wyoming have [nearly four] times the power of people in California is antithetical at the most basic level to what we say we stand for as a democracy."
Read More

Con 2

The Electoral College is rooted in slavery and racism.

The "minority" interests the Founding Fathers intended the Electoral College to protect were those of slaveowners and states with legal slavery. James Madison stated, "There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

As Wilfred Wilfred Codrington III, Assistant Professor at Brooklyn Law School and a fellow at the Brennan Center, explained, "Behind Madison's statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president... With about 93 percent of the country's slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South's congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise [counting only 3/5 of the enslaved population instead of the population as a whole] as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College."

The racism at the root of the Electoral College persists, suppressing the votes of people of color in favor of voters from largely homogenously white states.
Read More

Con 3

Democracy should function on the will of the people, allowing one vote per adult.

There are over an estimated 332 million people in the United States, with population estimates predicting almost 342 million by 2024, the next presidential election. But just 538 people decide who will be president; that's about 0.000156% of the population deciding the president. In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by more than one million votes, yet still lost the election on electoral votes.

Robert Nemanich, math teacher and former elector from Colorado Springs, stated, "Do we really want 538 Bob Nemanichs electing our president? ...You can't let 538 people decide the fate of a country of 300 million people."

Even President Donald Trump, who benefitted from the Electoral College system, stated after the 2016 election that he believes presidents should be chosen by popular vote: "I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win." Just as in 2000 when George W. Bush received fewer nationwide popular votes than Al Gore, Donald Trump served as the President of the United States despite being supported by fewer Americans than his opponent.

Jesse Wegman, author of Let the People Pick the President, stated, "If anything, representative democracy in the 21st century is about political equality. It's about one person, one vote - everybody's vote counting equally. You're not going to convince a majority of Americans that that's not how you should do it."

John Koza, Chairman of National Popular Vote, warned, "At this point I think changing the system to something better is going to determine whether there's a dictator in this country."
Read More
Discussion Questions
1. Should the Electoral College be abolished? Why or why not?

2. Should the Electoral College be modified? How and why? Or why not?

3. What other voting reforms would you make? Rank choice voting? Voter ID laws? Make a list and offer support for each reform. If you would not change the voting process, make a list of reforms and why you would not choose to enact them.
Take Action
1. Listen to a Constitution Center podcast exploring the pros and cons of the Electoral College.

2. Explore the Electoral College via the US National Archives.

3. Consider the American Bar Association's fact check on whether the Electoral College can be abolished.

4. Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the "other side of the issue" now helps you better argue your position.

5. Push for the position and policies you support by writing US national senators and representatives.
Sources

26.

John Wagner, et al., "Pence Declares Biden Winner of the Presidential Election after Congress Finally Counts Electoral Votes," washingtonpost.com, Jan. 7, 2021

33.

Mara Liasson, "A Growing Number of Critics Raise Alarms about the Electoral College," npr.org, June 10, 2021

More Election Debate Topics
Should People Who Have Completed Felony Sentences Be Allowed to Vote? - The pros and cons of the felon voting debate include arguments about the social contract, voting while in prison, and paying debts.

Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to 16?- Proponents say teens are knowledgeable enough to vote. Opponents say kids aren't mature enough to vote.

Should Election Day Be Made a National Holiday? - Proponents say an election day holiday will increase voter turnout. Opponents say would disadvantage low-income and blue collar workers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Electoral College ensures everyone selects the president. Opponents say it allows only a few states to select the president.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The government should not defund the police
2. Abortion should be illegal
3. Assault Rifles should not be banned

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1977, one year after the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, more than 1,480 people have been executed, primarily by means of lethal injection. Most death penalty cases involve the execution of murderers although capital punishment can also be applied for treason, espionage, and other crimes.

Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or "an eye for an eye" honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.

Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.

PROS & CONS BY CATEGORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death Penalty - Pros & Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The pros and cons of the death penalty debate include aguments for and against life imprisonment, crime deterrence, and methods like hanging.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All 50 US states have set their minimum drinking age to 21 although exceptions do exist on a state-by-state basis for consumption at home, under adult supervision, for medical necessity, and other reasons.

Proponents of lowering the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) from 21 argue that it has not stopped teen drinking, and has instead pushed underage binge drinking into private and less controlled environments, leading to more health and life-endangering behavior by teens.

Opponents of lowering the MLDA argue that teens have not yet reached an age where they can handle alcohol responsibly, and thus are more likely to harm or even kill themselves and others by drinking prior to 21. They contend that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

18 is the age of legal majority (adulthood) in the United States.

Americans enjoy a range of new rights, responsibilities, and freedoms when they turn 18 and become an adult in the eyes of the law.

18-year-olds may vote in local, state, and federal elections; may serve on juries; and may be charged as an adult if accused of a crime. 18-year-olds are responsible for any legally binding contracts they enter; are liable for negligence; and may be sued.

18-year-olds must register with the Selective Service if male and may be drafted into service at times of war. However, 17-year-olds may enter US military service.

18-year-olds may get married without parental consent; buy a house; and enjoy new privacy rights including the shielding of medical, academic, and financial information from parents.

However, drinking alcohol remains regulated under a legal age of license. An 18-year-old may legally be responsible children and legally allowed to make life decisions with years of impact, but may not legally drink a beer.

Todd Rutherford, South Carolina State Representative and Democrat House Minority Leader, who filed a bill on Nov. 10, 2021 to lower South Carolina's MLDA to 18, stated: "This is a personal freedom issue. If you are old enough to fight for our country, if you're old enough to vote, if you're old enough to sign on thousands of dollars of students loans for a college education, then you are old enough to have a[n alcoholic] drink."
Read More

Pro 3

MLDA creates a mindset of non-compliance with the law among young adults.

Lowering MLDA from 21 to 18 would diminish the thrill of breaking the law to get a drink. Normalizing alcohol consumption as something to be done responsibly and in moderation will make drinking alcohol less of a taboo for young adults entering college and the workforce.

High non-compliance with MLDA 21 promotes general disrespect and non-compliance with other areas of US law. MLDA 21 encourages young adults to acquire and use false identification documents to procure alcohol. It would be better to have fewer fake IDs in circulation and more respect for the law.

Further, MLDA 21 enforcement is not a priority for many law enforcement agencies. Police are inclined to ignore or under-enforce MLDA 21 because of resource limitations, statutory obstacles, perceptions that punishments are inadequate, and the time and effort required for processing and paperwork. An estimated two of every 1,000 occasions of illegal drinking by youth under 21 results in an arrest.

Combine a lack of consequences with the thrill of breaking the law, and MLDA 21 actually encourages underage drinking and potentially other illegal activities, such as driving while intoxicated and illicit drug use. Lowering the MLDA would make 18- to 20-year-olds subject to the same laws enforced for those 21 and over.
Read More

1. Underage drinking is allowed in some US states if done on private premises with parental consent, for religious purposes, or for educational purposes.

2. Between 1970 and 1976, 30 states lowered their Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) from 21 to 18, 19, or 20.

3. The enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 prompted states to raise their legal age for purchase or public possession of alcohol to 21 or risk losing millions in federal highway funds.

4. After the repeal of alcohol prohibition by the 21st Amendment on Dec. 5, 1933, Illinois (1933-1961) and Oklahoma (1933-1976) set their state drinking age at 21 for men and 18 for women. The 1976 US Supreme Court case Craig v. Boren ruled 7-2 that this age difference violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered in the US? 13 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents of a lower drinking age say 18 is the US age of adulthood. Opponents say lowering the age would be medically irresponsible. Research both sides.

# data[].attributes.body
1.Us should not ban assault weapons.
2. Everyone should have the same rights.

# data[].attributes.body
1. BLM everyone should be treated the same no matter the color of their skin.
2. Emigrants should be allowed and welcome in the USA
3. i believe Woman should have the same equal rights as man.
4. LGTBQ+ memebers should be equalized and feel welcome.
5. the gov. shouldnt defund the police.
6. I also believe BLM protests should be non violent but peaceful protests.

# data[].attributes.body
the US Economy should Be Shut Down again during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic if Recommended by Scientists

LGBTQ+ People should Have Protection from Being Fired for Being LGBTQ+

the Death Penalty should Be Allowed

# data[].attributes.body
1. The police should not be defunded

2 statues and landmarks should not be taken down
3.Abortion should almost always be illegal

# data[].attributes.body
1. I don't think adoption agencies should be allowed to turn don't LGBTQ+ couples.
2. I think abortion should be legal because it's the woman's decision, it isn't up to anyone else.
3. I do think the United States should adopt a climate change plan like the Green New Deal.
4. I do think the US should ban assault weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
1. abortion should be illegal
2. the government should not defund the police
3.the US should not ban assault rifles
4.the US should end the cash bail system

# data[].attributes.body
1. BLM and as long as the protests are peace full police should not interfere.
2. LGBTQ+  members should not be discriminated against just because of who they love.
3. Abortion should be the women's choice it is not up to anyone else.
4.Death row should be illegal.
5. The police should not be defended, but rather therapists should come with police so that things like the George Floyd case never happen again.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The government should not defund the police.
2. The US should not ban assault rifles
3. No statues or landmarks should not be taken down.
4. I believe you should not burn the flag.
5. I believe abortion should be illegal

# data[].attributes.body
1.  LGBTQ+ citizens should have discrimination protection from being fired for being LGBTQ+
2.  Family and Medical Leave for all Americans
3. The US should rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement

# data[].attributes.body
1. the gov. should not defund the police.
2. assault rifles should not be banned.
3. riots should stop.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The government should not defund the police.
2. The US should not ban assault weapons.
3. Federal taxes should not be increased.

# data[].attributes.body
1. We should not abolish the Electoral System.
2. Abortion should be illegal when the baby is 22 months or older in the womb ("Late Term abortion")
3. Police should not be defunded nor abolished.

# data[].attributes.body
1. No the government should not defend the police.
2. The government should not take away fire arms.
3. No statues should not and would not be taken down.
4. The government should not take away private prisons.
5. The government should not take away death penalty.
6. Riots of BLM should not be allowed to tear down buildings or do phelanies to the world.

# data[].attributes.body
1.LGBTQ+ citizens should have discrimination protection from being fired for being LGBTQ+
2. transgender people should be able and a loud to serve in the military
3. they should not defund the police
4. Adoption agencies should not be aloud to turn down LGBTQ+ people and couples

# data[].attributes.body
1.  Transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military
2. LGBTQ+ citizens should have discrimination protection from being fired for being LGBTQ+
3. Adoption agencies should not be allowed to turn down LQBTQ+ couples

# data[].attributes.body
1. The government should not defund the police
2. The US should not ban assault rifles
3. The US should end the cash bail system
4. The government should not ban the death penalty
5. Voters should have to show photo identity to vote

# data[].attributes.body
1. Family and Medical Leave for All Americans
2. LGBTQ+ citizens should have discrimination protection from being fired for being LGBTQ+
3. The US should rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement 