Persuasive Speech Assignment

[Kamehameha34]

I'm supposed to turn in a persuasive speech regarding any topic I like, so I wrote mine extolling the idiocies of the electoral college. It's meant to be recited, but I'd like to get your opinions before I turn it in. Keep in mind, I'm writing for an audience of high school students.



As I’m sure most, if not all of you are aware, Barack Obama is now the president elect. What you may not be aware of is the nonsensicality of the process by which we conducted the American presidential election. This process is called the Electoral College, and in short, it robs everyone except for a select few in key ‘swing’ states of their vote. How are they robbed of their votes? They go to the polls, they hand in their ballots, and their votes are counted – so the process works, right? This process may work in theory, but in practice nothing could be further from the truth.
Two weeks ago, Barack Obama received 53% of the popular vote. This total is more than enough to win the election on its own. However, Barack Obama did not win because of the fact that a majority of voters voted for him. He won because of the fact that he won 69% of the Electoral College voters. What is the point in electing the people we believe to be the most qualified for office if those very people have yet to correct a system in which 53 equals 69? With figures like that, one might even question the point in voting at all. A 16% gap between the popular vote and the Electoral College vote equates to 18,756,123 voting Americans that were represented falsely in the election.
This moronic system did not affect the outcome of the election this time, but leaving it unfixed because it worked ‘this time’ is inexcusable, as it sets us up for disappointment further down the road where the system may fail us, and award the candidate with the smaller amount of votes with the presidency. Many of us will be voting for the first time in the next election – how many of you are comforted by the fact that it may not be our votes, but the geographical location of our votes that decides who the next leader of the free world will be?
I probably don’t need to remind anyone of the 2000 election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote and still lost the election. I may be new to the democratic process, but I was always under the impression that more votes equals a majority. There’s little to be said about the Electoral College system that doesn’t expound upon the fact that it simply makes no sense.
The Electoral College is an amalgamation of 50 different elections held in each state. Essentially, votes are counted at voting precincts and these results are reported. Then, the votes are counted by the state and the winning candidate gets all of that states ‘delegates’, in most cases. The error in this system is that winning 51% of a state’s popular vote is awarded with the same amount of delegates as winning 100% of a state’s popular vote. This means that if you live in a state in which at least 51% of the voters are expected to vote a certain way, your vote is worthless. The fallibility of this system does not end there – because the delegates each state pledges based on the popular vote don’t even have to vote a certain way! Delegates have ‘stolen’ votes this way in the past, which makes it entirely possible for the outcome of an election to be based upon the sudden whims of 527 people.
Among the short list of arguments for the supposed validity of the Electoral College is that it gives rights to the states. I’m sure you share my incredulity at the fact that this argument can even be taken seriously – What powers belong to the states that are protected by the Electoral College? If the vote were to be counted correctly instead of so blatantly mutilated, what constitutional rights would the states be deprived of? Seriously, I’ll wait.

Your silence speaks volumes. There is no defensible argument for the Electoral College. The only difference between the Electoral College and an actual counting of the popular vote besides what we’ve already discussed is the size of the numbers that each state gets to send in.
The Electoral College needs to go. It’s an antiquated system that can easily be replaced by a simple count of the popular vote. I’m in awe of the fact that it’s been allowed to continue, when even my 6-year old cousin had the sense to ask me why George Bush won the election in 2000 when he didn’t win more votes than Al Gore.

[Scribbler1]

I like your use of the anticipated pause, as in "I'll wait" and "Your silence speaks volumes". Just don't use that where people can start raising their hands to answer you.

What I find unfathomable is the electors in many states are not legally bound to vote the way the majority did.

And I agree. While the number of electors per state are roughly analogous to the population of each state the idea of "winner stake all" frankly stinks and should no longer be applied.

[Kamehameha34]

Thanks, and I thought about that. I'm fairly confident that the environment and subject matter would discourage people from answering. I am trying to figure out what I'll do if someone does, though. I'm pretty certain that I could refute any answer and expound upon my refutation to add another minute to my speech length.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Thanks, and I thought about that. I'm fairly confident that the environment and subject matter would discourage people from answering. I am trying to figure out what I'll do if someone does, though. I'm pretty certain that I could refute any answer and expound upon my refutation to add another minute to my speech length.

It's a speech! Don't even try to answer anything.

Just smile a little and say offhandedly "well, actually that was just a rhetorical question ( then big grin), but I appreciate your participation." And then, after omitting the "silence speaks volumes" part, keep going like nothing happened.

Sometimes a little ad libbing is needed, but a prepared ad lib makes it a LOT easier.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm confident that I won't have to use it, but it feels better just to be prepared for anything.

[Jason]

I'm multitasking and only read your first few sentences, but it appears you're launching right into a biased tirade. Persuasive speeches are not supposed to offend the listeners; they're supposed to guide the listener to take on your position…even someone who initially disagrees with you. In approaching the electoral college, your introduction should introduce what it is without making a value judgment. Then you should state your opinion that it is flawed for reasons A, B and C. Finally you should support your arguments until by the conclusion, the listener agrees with everything you've said. Right now, you risk losing your audience practically before you even begin.

[Kamehameha34]

I don't particularly like the format, but the rubric said to open with an 'opinion statement'.

[Jason]

Your first sentence isn't an opinion. If you meant, rather, that your introduction should contain an opinion, the format I provided suits the prompt just fine.

[Clarence]

I agree with Kameha's opinion and Jason's suggestions, as well