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):