Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: The electoral college favors a strong two-party system

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:28, 13 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (17:42, 14 June 2010) (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Parent debate)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*[[Debate:Electoral College (US), Abolition of]]+*[[Debate: US electoral college]]
- +
==Supporting evidence== ==Supporting evidence==
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D8153FF936A15751C1A967958260 Gerard J. Fitzpatrick, Prof. of Politics Ursinus College Collegeville. "We Should Keep the Electoral College" (letter to the editor). New York Times. December 25, 1991] - "Abolishing the Electoral College would also undermine our already weak two-party system by encouraging third parties and independent candidates to seek the White House. Multiple candidates would fragment the electorate and make it difficult to forge a majority coalition, much less secure a mandate, thereby weakening the winner's capacity to govern." *[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6D8153FF936A15751C1A967958260 Gerard J. Fitzpatrick, Prof. of Politics Ursinus College Collegeville. "We Should Keep the Electoral College" (letter to the editor). New York Times. December 25, 1991] - "Abolishing the Electoral College would also undermine our already weak two-party system by encouraging third parties and independent candidates to seek the White House. Multiple candidates would fragment the electorate and make it difficult to forge a majority coalition, much less secure a mandate, thereby weakening the winner's capacity to govern."

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.