00:00
the lbj museum of san marcos presents
00:03
debate night with texas state
00:06
university’s
00:06
lbj debate society and the university of
00:10
north texas debate team
00:12
tonight’s proposition for or against
00:15
abolish
00:15
the electoral college this program was
00:18
recorded via zoom on october 26th
00:21
2020. the lyndon baines-johnson museum
00:25
of san marcos
00:26
is a mission-driven not-for-profit
00:28
organization that explores how his early
00:31
years in central texas influenced the
00:33
landmark legislation of the 36th
00:36
president of the united states
00:37
and the impacts of that legislation on
00:39
our lives today
00:41
to support programs like this one please
00:43
visit www.lbjmuseum.com to make a
00:47
one-time donation or become a member
00:50
thanks literary societies have a long
00:53
history of meeting in debates
00:55
in fact in 1879 the sam houston normal
00:58
was established
00:59
but by 1907 san marcos
01:02
southwest texas normal had already
01:04
challenged north texas normal to an
01:06
official debate
01:07
between the two colleges there’s
01:08
actually a long history of these normal
01:10
schools debating one another
01:12
san houston normal east texas normal the
01:15
north texas normal to southwest texas
01:17
normal
01:17
and the west texas norman which by the
01:19
way all five of these colleges still
01:21
exist they are texas state
01:23
texas a m commerce north texas
01:27
and west texas a m they all exist um
01:30
they’re evolved in a number of ways for
01:31
them to be able to have meetings
01:33
and to be able to compete against one
01:35
another this was a regular event
01:37
let me read just one short excerpt from
01:40
a match that they had in 1909
01:42
the san marco school brought along 23
01:45
men
01:46
students for the festivities the
01:48
oratorical association was to host a
01:49
reception with
01:50
music and the band during the evening
01:53
program a trio club the orpheus octet
01:55
and the octet of strings provided music
01:58
the day was a round of dinners
02:00
carriage drives receptions banquets etc
02:03
the rivalry blossomed rapidly out doing
02:05
anything
02:06
that athletic competition yet had to
02:08
offer that excerpt which was found in
02:11
the normal schools gazette actually
02:13
tells us that debating
02:15
outside of the classroom was a much more
02:17
popular engagement
02:18
than any of the athletic events that
02:20
happened and that there were days full
02:22
with dinners i’m looking forward to
02:23
those dinners when we get back down to
02:24
san marcos
02:25
we’ll have plenty of those i’m sure well
02:27
by 1920 uh many of the normal schools
02:29
had changed their names to the teachers
02:31
colleges
02:32
that they were known as around that era
02:34
but what didn’t change was the focus on
02:36
debate
02:36
as dr kramer said lyndon maines johnson
02:39
was a debater
02:40
at southwest texas normal in fact he is
02:42
famously written for participating in a
02:44
debate in 1928
02:46
against sam houston normal in which he
02:48
and his partner elmer graham
02:50
were victorious on a two-to-one decision
02:53
beating sam houston on the topic the u.s
02:56
should cease to protect capital
02:58
investments
02:59
in foreign countries after declarations
03:02
of war did you hear that
03:04
34 years before there was a vietnam era
03:07
they were debating the topic whether or
03:10
not we should protect capital
03:11
investments in foreign countries after
03:13
declarations of war
03:14
these normal schools really were doing
03:17
incredible things
03:18
to democratize the students and the
03:20
student body
03:21
and the impact that the normal schools
03:22
had on their students it left a lasting
03:24
generation not only
03:25
impacting their students but then those
03:27
teachers and i should remind you that
03:29
right after his participation in the
03:31
college at texas
03:32
southwest texas teachers college at that
03:34
time lbj went on to teach
03:37
at a primarily mexican-american high
03:39
school for a short period of time
03:41
he noted afterwards that the debate
03:44
itself
03:45
was a glorious occasion and the
03:46
commentary in the newspaper read every
03:48
courtesy
03:49
was extended by the debaters and the
03:51
coach and each person only had feelings
03:54
of gratitude and appreciation i think
03:58
back on the debates that we’ve seen
03:59
between
04:00
the presidential candidates in these
04:01
last few weeks and i wonder if they
04:03
could say
04:03
the same thing that each person only had
04:06
feelings
04:07
of gratitude and appreciation well a lot
04:10
of things has changed but one thing that
04:11
hasn’t changed
04:12
is the importance of debate and
04:14
discussing issues that are central to
04:16
our country and that tradition continues
04:18
and i’m very very glad that students
04:20
from north texas can participate in this
04:22
event tonight
04:23
and it harkens back to that first
04:24
challenge match in 1907
04:27
and we’ll see if we can keep up the
04:28
discussion and if afterwards everyone
04:31
can have feelings of gratitude and
04:32
appreciation thanks very much for having
04:34
us here this evening
04:36
thank you brian and i have feelings of
04:39
gratitude and appreciation for you for
04:40
doing that for us i really appreciate
04:42
that
04:43
so our debate this evening is that the
04:45
united states should abolish the
04:47
electoral college
04:49
our two teams that we have debating for
04:51
you today
04:52
are of course the university of north
04:54
texas and texas state
04:55
university our visitors from the
04:58
university of north texas will be on the
05:00
negative
05:00
they will be advocating um
05:04
not abolishing and i would like to
05:06
introduce them now
05:08
alex de la rosa and jose sanchez
05:14
virtually and then the texas state team
05:17
that we will have debating
05:18
uh on the affirmative jacob everett and
05:21
hannah nunley
05:24
our format is a very simple format what
05:26
we will do is each of the debaters will
05:29
have a six
05:29
minute speech now uh that six minute
05:33
speech
05:34
uh will be subject to what we call
05:36
points of information
05:38
after their first minute you may hear me
05:40
say poi
05:42
or something along those lines to
05:44
indicate that members of the other team
05:47
can raise their hand to ask a point of
05:50
information
05:51
the speaker can either accept that point
05:54
or they can decline it
05:56
um one minute prior to the end of their
05:58
speech i will give them another
06:01
point on a one minute mark and they will
06:04
know that
06:05
that they’re now back in protected time
06:08
okay
06:08
after the after the four six-minute
06:11
speeches we will then throw it open to
06:13
the audience where you can make
06:15
floor speeches uh not to exceed two
06:18
minutes
06:19
and so i’ll ask you all to turn back on
06:21
your videos at that point
06:23
and we will then
06:25
[Music]
06:27
ask for those those particular speeches
06:30
after those are concluded
06:32
each side will then have a four-minute
06:34
rebuttal
06:35
beginning with the negative and then the
06:37
affirmative
06:38
and then at the end of the debate uh i
06:40
will release the poll
06:41
and you will either vote to abolish the
06:43
electoral college
06:45
or not okey-doke so without any further
06:48
ado
06:49
i call upon um jacob everett from texas
06:53
state university
06:54
to begin the case for the affirmative
06:58
all right uh before i start i’d like to
07:00
thank the lbj museum for hosting us
07:03
i’d like to thank unt for deciding to
07:05
come down and uh
07:06
debate us even though it’s over zoom i’d
07:08
like to thank everyone who decided to
07:09
come out and
07:10
uh watch the debate today um with that
07:13
i’m going to go ahead and start i’m
07:14
going to start off with some background
07:16
daryl west reported for the brookings
07:18
institute that the electoral college was
07:20
created as a way to outsource
07:21
major influence on the chief executive
07:23
away from both the federal government
07:25
and state legislatures
07:26
this third party system is constantly
07:28
justified through arguments like
07:30
the tyranny of the majority and
07:31
federalism however its practice has been
07:33
less than stellar
07:34
the national conference of state
07:35
legislatures or the ncaso
07:37
says that the electoral college betrayed
07:39
the popular vote in 1824
07:41
1876 1888 1960 2000
07:45
and our most recent uh presidential
07:46
election in 2016.
07:48
the electoral college is a system that’s
07:50
ingrained in our political culture has
07:51
led to several controversies
07:53
keeping all of this in mind we struck we
07:54
stand strongly at firm
07:56
the electoral college should be
07:57
abolished because it encourages
07:58
strategic campaigns based on swing
08:00
states
08:01
it encourages a lack of representation
08:03
and abolishing the electoral college is
08:04
something that people would like
08:06
firstly though we have to look at the
08:07
swing states uh
08:09
the electoral college makes the election
08:10
come down to just a few battleground
08:13
states
08:14
in fact only over 90 percent of the
08:15
campaigns take place in just 11 states
08:18
the electoral college makes few states
08:19
more important uh to campaigns
08:21
and it causes candidates to avoid
08:23
campaigning in other states
08:24
richard hanson a professor at the
08:26
university of california irvine school
08:28
of law
08:28
told the harvard gazette on october 21st
08:30
of 2019 that there hasn’t been a major
08:32
rally in the past few months of a
08:34
campaign
08:35
by candidates that aren’t swing states
08:36
since 2000. this means that candidates
08:39
are no longer running on a campaign
08:40
based on uh policies and foreign affairs
08:42
they’re making strategic decisions as if
08:44
they’re playing a game of risk
08:46
it’s based completely along the lines of
08:48
how many blue states there are and how
08:49
many red states are
08:50
not who has the best policies or who
08:52
should actually be president there’s a
08:53
huge
08:54
problem with this method of electing
08:55
candidates because it creates a low
08:57
voter voter turnout
08:58
npr reported on november 26 of 2016 that
09:01
battleground stakes have the highest
09:03
voter turnouts they put out a few
09:04
reasons for this
09:05
one voters are told are told to vote
09:08
more than those who aren’t in swing
09:09
states
09:10
uh uh sorry uh
09:14
yeah uh door knockers uh ads targeted
09:16
towards increasing turnout and more
09:18
tactics are aimed at increasing turnout
09:19
specifically in these states but not
09:21
but not in states that aren’t called
09:22
battleground states the second reason is
09:25
that voting is more convenient in swing
09:26
states
09:27
things like same-day voter registration
09:29
no excuse absentee voting and even
09:31
mail-in voting has to have historically
09:33
been
09:33
reserved for swing states and swing
09:35
states only and
09:36
the third reason is that voters are just
09:38
more likely to be discouraged from
09:39
voting in non-swing states voters are
09:41
less likely to show up to the belt
09:42
because
09:43
they’re uh if they’re sure that their
09:44
electors are going to vote one way or
09:46
the other
09:47
now now we’ve looked specifically
09:49
through uh or now that we’ve looked
09:50
specifically through how how swing
09:52
states
09:52
like create low border turnout we can
09:54
analyze the representation question
09:56
whenever it comes to the electoral
09:57
college
09:58
the rect or the electoral college
10:00
doesn’t properly represent america
10:02
this is obvious from the several
10:03
elections that we’ve had with presidents
10:05
who lost a popular vote
10:06
but not the election especially in uh
10:09
especially in the most recent elections
10:10
of 2000 and 2016.
10:12
christopher pearson a vermont senator on
10:14
the board of national popular vote uh
10:16
told the ncso that thing that
10:18
things like winner take all laws those
10:20
uh laws that are uh give all of the
10:21
sorry all the electors in a single state
10:23
to one candidate means that only almost
10:25
70 percent of americans aren’t given
10:27
proper representation in the
10:28
presidential race faithless electors
10:31
also heavily contribute to this in the
10:32
daryl west’s article that i pointed out
10:34
from uh brookings earlier
10:36
uh uh elected or he said that electors
10:38
can vote whichever way they like and it
10:39
was even up held in a court in 2016 that
10:42
electors can vote whichever way that
10:43
they’d like
10:44
uh uh it doesn’t matter how
10:48
uh people vote on their in the popular
10:50
vote
10:51
uh this was after seven electors
10:52
defected which is uh
10:54
which only which means that there’s less
10:56
representation though than what there
10:57
should be in our presidential election
10:59
this poor representation has led to
11:01
disaster presidencies full of unhappy
11:03
constituents and bad policies that go
11:05
against what the majority of americans
11:06
want
11:07
this is especially evident in the past
11:09
election clinton won the popular vote by
11:10
almost one million votes but trump has
11:12
enter uh but trump ended up winning the
11:14
election and trump has had more
11:16
controversies and even an impeachment
11:18
which is a pretty good sign that maybe
11:20
the popular vote would have been the way
11:21
to go
11:22
this is less democratic which is the big
11:24
problem with uh poor representation
11:26
there’s a tremendous lack of
11:28
representation has led to a loss of
11:29
democracy
11:30
it’s no longer each person’s ballot that
11:32
decides who represents them in
11:33
government but instead it’s several
11:34
people who vote on who they like to
11:36
become president this means that every
11:37
four years
11:38
538 people become the most influential
11:41
people in america
11:42
this makes it fully possible that your
11:44
vote will not count
11:46
looking past representation we can look
11:48
at uh we can look at abolishing the
11:50
electoral college as something that’s
11:51
popular
11:52
in fact uh the brook the brookings
11:54
institute article that i keep
11:55
referencing says that
11:57
as early as 1967 58 of americans vote
12:01
favored a popular election over the
12:02
electoral college and again in 2019
12:05
politico took another poll that had a
12:06
majority of respondents requesting a
12:08
popular vote as well
12:10
it’s entirely or uh knowing that knowing
12:13
all the
12:13
things one minute left oh thank you
12:17
mr kramer um keeping all this in mind
12:20
it’s entirely possible for us to abolish
12:22
the electoral college
12:24
we can uh we can uh we can amend the
12:26
constitution it’s not hard uh the
12:28
constitution has been amended before
12:30
so knowing all of this uh understanding
12:33
how representation and swing states
12:35
affect not only voter turnout but the
12:37
but the uh sorry but uh democracy as we
12:40
know it and how it threatens each of
12:41
those
12:41
knowing that people or knowing that end
12:44
of our citizens in america
12:46
actively are uh active we want a popular
12:48
vote over the electoral college
12:50
and no or and knowing that uh the
12:53
electoral college is just something
12:54
that’s been incurred that’s
12:55
ingrained in our political culture only
12:57
because we put it there not because it’s
12:59
something we can’t get rid of
13:00
it’s very easy to see why we should
13:02
abolish a electoral college
13:04
thank you thanks very much for those
13:08
remarks
13:09
and i now call upon alex de la rosa to
13:12
begin the case for the negative
13:17
yeah first i’d like to get some thank
13:19
yous out of the way i’d like to thank
13:20
texas state for hosting this
13:21
practice tournament like to thank our
13:23
fellow our opponents in this debate for
13:25
coming out and debating us today
13:27
i’d like to thank our debate coaches for
13:29
prepping us for this debate
13:30
uh and i’d like to thank uh lbj himself
13:34
for providing me the first quote in my
13:36
speech so
13:38
that all the way i’ll go ahead and begin
13:42
in 1965 president lyndon johnson was
13:44
quoted and saying quote our present
13:46
system of computing
13:47
and awarding electoral votes by states
13:49
is an essential counterpart
13:50
of our federal system and the provisions
13:52
of our constitution which recognize and
13:54
maintain
13:55
our nation as a union of states today i
13:57
will determine one big disadvantage of
13:59
moving to a national popular vote and
14:00
then propose a potential alternative
14:03
and address some points that they bring
14:04
up about the electoral college
14:06
so i’d like to pose one question first
14:09
elections are supposed to be
14:10
for the people right they’re supposed to
14:11
represent the people correct but who are
14:14
these people
14:15
according to the washington post there’s
14:17
an estimated 16 million undocumented
14:19
immigrants in the united states
14:20
furthermore there’s six million
14:22
african-americans who are unable to vote
14:23
due to their felony status in a racist
14:25
justice system
14:26
and a large number of mentally
14:27
incapacitated people who are not able to
14:29
vote
14:30
is there a new voice is there any way
14:32
the voices can be captured well yes
14:34
it’s actually the electoral college now
14:36
how do we do this well
14:37
first the electoral college votes are
14:39
actually determined by the census
14:41
the census determines the total amount
14:42
of electorates by population size
14:44
which includes undocumented persons
14:46
felons
14:47
the mentally incapacitated and who are
14:50
all groups of people who are not allowed
14:51
to vote
14:52
the framers of the constitution
14:54
recognize that people who aren’t allowed
14:55
to vote
14:56
still contribute to and are affected by
14:58
our country’s decisions
14:59
according to the washington post donald
15:01
trump tried to remove undocumented
15:02
immigrant populations from being counted
15:04
in the census
15:05
now why would he do this well while
15:07
undocumented immigrants can’t vote their
15:09
impact is still felt in determining
15:10
electoral college numbers
15:12
the same applies for felons and the
15:13
mentally incapacitated
15:15
at a time when there is a mass division
15:16
we do not need more nationalistic
15:18
rhetoric about who
15:19
is and isn’t a citizen and who is and
15:21
isn’t able
15:22
to vote now the electoral college isn’t
15:26
perfect we’ll be the first to admit it
15:27
but the beauty of our constitution is
15:29
that it is open to change
15:30
so is there a better way to do things is
15:32
there a better way that actually exists
15:34
one that exists in maine or nebraska
15:36
maybe
15:38
well if the answer were no then this
15:40
wouldn’t be a particularly good debate
15:41
but there is so
15:42
that’s the good news so what’s the our
15:44
proposed alternative
15:45
well i’d like to map out uh map this out
15:48
by using texas
15:49
uh as an example right so texas
15:52
currently has 38 electoral votes
15:54
36 of which are derived from the house
15:55
of representatives and two of which are
15:57
derived from the senate so the way our
15:59
system our plan would work is that
16:01
there would be 36 individual elections
16:03
in texas for each district
16:04
and the person who wins that district
16:06
wins that electoral vote and this would
16:09
provide a better allocation of electoral
16:11
votes and the remaining two
16:13
um the remaining two electoral votes
16:15
will be
16:16
given to the person who wins the overall
16:18
state popular vote like i said
16:20
this already exists in nebraska in maine
16:22
now there are a few benefits of this
16:23
right
16:24
the first is a federalism yes um
16:27
so your counter advocacy you talk about
16:30
how like
16:31
there’s a big disadvantage to the
16:32
popular vote how does your counter
16:34
advocacy
16:35
allow the groups you discuss to vote
16:39
well it doesn’t give them the right to
16:40
vote however it does give them more
16:41
representation right
16:42
if we move to a popular vote that only
16:45
allows for
16:46
citizens and to be represented through
16:48
their votes directly
16:49
we lose a lot of the representation that
16:50
they could potentially have right
16:51
because of the fact that
16:52
the census accounts for undocumented
16:54
immigrants and these other groups of
16:55
people
16:56
were more able to like allocate
16:58
electoral votes
16:59
more in a better way than without uh in
17:02
a better way that allows these people to
17:04
have an impact on the election
17:06
now moving on to the benefits right the
17:08
first is that of federalism right we
17:09
need a mechanism
17:11
to uh actually give out these elections
17:13
right and the states are that mechanism
17:15
according to a report by pepperdine
17:16
university the electoral college retains
17:18
the power of states to administer
17:20
elections and more specifically to
17:21
determine voter eligibility as presented
17:23
to constitute the electoral
17:24
as present as presently constituted the
17:26
electoral college includes a mechanism
17:28
that accounts for voters and non-voters
17:29
alike
17:30
the second benefit is that we’re able to
17:31
address this issue of invisible
17:32
populations
17:33
since the allocation of electoral
17:34
college votes are on a state-by-state
17:36
level it’s more representative of the
17:38
overall population of those states which
17:39
includes immigrants felons and the
17:41
mentally incapacitated
17:42
the interests of these people are more
17:43
likely to be represented if there’s
17:45
better allocation
17:46
of electoral votes the third is that of
17:48
ruralism yeah go ahead
17:50
um these groups of people that you’re
17:52
saying are properly represented by the
17:53
electoral college how well were they
17:55
represented in their
17:56
in the last pr or in the last election
17:59
for
18:00
uh well in the sense that they impact
18:02
the amount of electoral votes that each
18:04
state gets right
18:05
so without the electoral college votes
18:06
they have no weight in our election
18:08
system and that’s
18:09
like that’s ultimately what we’re trying
18:11
to solve now some of the benefits of our
18:13
plan is that it actually solves
18:15
some of the political engagement because
18:16
people are more likely to vote if they
18:18
feel like they’re actually going to be
18:19
representative
18:20
there’s plenty of evidence that suggests
18:21
that people actually just want to be
18:22
represented
18:23
and the term and when it comes to the
18:25
support this
18:27
disproportionate representation about
18:29
the person not winning the national vote
18:31
our plan solves this because there’s a
18:32
better allocation
18:33
of electoral votes that are more tied to
18:35
the popular vote than the current system
18:37
now let’s move on to the like the first
18:38
few points that our opponents make
18:40
first they say that like the electoral
18:43
college
18:44
go ahead one minute remaining okay sorry
18:47
first they say that politicians
18:48
don’t campaign in states with the
18:50
electoral college the same way they
18:51
would
18:52
with a popular vote however this just
18:54
like this is just politics right
18:56
people don’t politicians are not always
18:59
getting into the motion of policy that
19:01
impacts their constituents they’re more
19:02
concerned with
19:04
how looking good and strategizing how to
19:06
win elections this doesn’t go away with
19:08
removing the electoral college right
19:10
all you have to do is look at an episode
19:11
of parks and rec and notice that a
19:13
politician is more considerate about how
19:14
they can win
19:15
and how they look in order to win those
19:18
votes and then
19:19
going on to the representation they say
19:20
that there’s no proper representation
19:22
with the electoral college however our
19:24
plan solves for this right because
19:26
because of the fact that the electoral
19:28
college votes are allocated in a more
19:29
proportional way
19:30
we’re actually gonna uh we’re actually
19:33
gonna be able to have a
19:34
and we’re actually have a system where
19:36
the person who wins the popular vote is
19:37
going to be able to win the electoral
19:39
college well
19:39
and we actually get a lot of the
19:41
benefits of the electoral college that
19:42
we demonstrated thank you
19:47
thanks very much for those remarks and i
19:49
now call upon hannah nunley
19:51
to continue the case for the government
20:01
okay i’m starting my time now
20:04
on august the 6th of 1965 then president
20:08
lyndon b johnson signed the voting
20:09
rights act into law
20:11
this provision guaranteed african
20:13
americans the right to vote and made it
20:14
illegal to impose restrictions on
20:16
federal state and local elections that
20:18
were designed to deny the vote
20:20
to african americans this act allowed
20:22
more representation for americans
20:24
the same way that the voting rights act
20:26
made the voting system more
20:27
representative of the united states
20:30
jacob and i proudly affirmed that the
20:31
united states should abolish the
20:33
electoral college
20:34
first i’ll go ahead and add on another
20:36
point to the points that jacob discussed
20:38
in his first speech
20:39
this points about third parties in spite
20:41
of the founders intentions the united
20:43
states in 1900 became the first nation
20:46
to develop political parties organized
20:48
on a national basis to accomplish the
20:50
transfer of executive power from one
20:52
faction to another via an election
20:54
the united states embassy in an article
20:56
titled role of political parties
20:58
stated that in recent decades the amount
21:00
of individual voters who classify
21:02
themselves as independents has risen
21:04
substantially
21:05
the requirements of the electoral
21:06
college make it extremely difficult
21:08
nay impossible for a third party
21:10
candidate to win the presidency
21:12
because the individual states electoral
21:16
votes are allocated under a
21:17
winner-take-all arrangement
21:19
these winner-take-all arrangements
21:20
stifle the ability of third-party
21:22
candidates to gain legitimacy due to the
21:24
way that the electoral college favors
21:26
the two-party system
21:27
this would not go away under the
21:29
advocacy that the negation unt
21:31
proposes unfortunately with electors
21:33
still in place third parties are still
21:34
stifled of their ability to gain
21:36
legitimacy
21:37
let’s look at the arguments that unt
21:39
puts on the case that jacob gives you
21:42
first on our we tell you that swing
21:44
states will still
21:45
happen and that ultimately what happens
21:48
is the electoral college forces
21:49
elections to come down to a few
21:51
battleground states
21:52
unt says unfortunately this is just
21:54
politics
21:55
however their counter advocacy doesn’t
21:58
get rid of this either
21:59
me and jacob tell you that popular votes
22:01
ultimately increase the amount of
22:03
representation that happens
22:05
with um within the united states during
22:07
an election year
22:08
and they ignore jacob’s argumentation
22:11
that these swing states create lower
22:12
voter turnout
22:13
which the counter advocacy can’t solve
22:15
because they still use electors
22:17
when you still have electors you still
22:19
have people who believe that their vote
22:20
doesn’t matter
22:21
therefore the counter advocacy doesn’t
22:24
create
22:24
a higher voter turnout like abolishing
22:26
the electoral college would
22:28
second we talk about representation and
22:31
they tell you that the
22:32
counter advocacy stalls unfortunately
22:35
this still
22:36
isn’t true um first
22:39
not all people that are counted in the
22:41
census are eligible to vote or even
22:43
choose to vote
22:44
in order to vote you have to register
22:46
first and unt’s argumentation
22:48
does not take that into account people
22:50
who are non-voters are choosing not to
22:52
participate
22:52
and we have no idea what their voice is
22:54
because they have not voted
22:56
the electors cannot accurately represent
22:59
non-voters because they do not know
23:01
where they stand
23:02
which means a popular vote would ensure
23:03
that more people are represented
23:05
in the united states and in democracy
23:08
than before
23:09
and then are more representative than
23:12
what the counter advocacy statement
23:14
gives you and under the counter
23:17
advocacy that the negation gives you
23:19
this leads to things like fraud
23:21
since we’re talking about the census and
23:23
unfortunately if someone dies tomorrow
23:25
they would still be counted under the
23:26
census and they would still be counted
23:28
as like a voter that the negation is
23:31
trying to
23:32
make count in the united states not only
23:35
that but the counter advocacy actually
23:36
does nothing for representation because
23:38
the groups that cannot vote currently
23:40
will still not be able to vote
23:42
which means electors don’t know where
23:44
they stand so there’s no more
23:46
representation
23:47
in the inundation that they can give
23:49
that the act doesn’t give
23:51
um you can look towards jacob’s third
23:53
point where we tell you that
23:54
the um the popular vote is something
23:57
that the vast majority of americans want
23:59
so if the vast majority of americans
24:01
feel like the popular vote is something
24:03
that they want we should go ahead and
24:04
abolish the electoral college
24:07
and getting rid of the winner take all
24:10
approach that the
24:11
that unt proposes doesn’t change the
24:13
outcome of elections nor does
24:15
it actually do anything as jacob tells
24:18
us in the first speech electors can
24:20
still vote whichever way they like
24:22
there are numerous federal laws that
24:23
require elected officials and
24:25
policymakers to follow ethics and
24:26
transparency rules to ensure that the
24:28
officials act in the public’s interest
24:30
however presidential electors have never
24:33
been considered true elected officials
24:35
or policy makers so these laws do not
24:37
cover them
24:38
under unt’s counter advocacy faithless
24:41
electors will still be
24:43
allowed to vote whichever way they
24:45
choose which means even if you believe
24:47
the argument that
24:48
somehow abolishing the winner take all
24:50
system part of the electoral college but
24:52
keeping the electors
24:53
is going to lead to an increase of
24:55
representation
24:56
unfortunately because the electors can
24:58
vote for whoever they want
25:00
that’s not true the counter advocacy
25:04
attempts to fix a broken system
25:06
the states that they mention thank you
25:09
the states they mentioned have moved to
25:10
abolish the winner take all system in
25:12
their states
25:13
actually moved to have it work this way
25:15
in order to protect the popular vote
25:18
not because they believe that the winner
25:19
take off system was bad
25:21
the three reasons that jacob gives in
25:23
the first speech about sweden states
25:25
representation
25:26
and how this is what the vast majority
25:28
of constituents want
25:29
shows that abolishing the electoral
25:31
college as a whole
25:33
is still better than having any part of
25:35
it exist
25:36
under abolishing the electoral college
25:38
you’re going to see more representation
25:40
because we use the popular vote
25:42
and because we don’t have electors
25:43
standing in the way unfortunately the
25:45
counter advocacy that unt
25:47
gives you is not sufficient enough and
25:49
at the point where me and jacob show you
25:51
that this is what the vast majority of
25:53
americans want
25:54
we should always prefer situations in
25:56
which we protect democracy and not
25:58
demolish it
25:59
thank you thanks very much for those
26:03
remarks
26:03
and now i call upon jose sanchez to
26:07
continue the case for the
26:08
opposition
26:11
all right cool
26:19
the lesson for this debate is that
26:20
currently alternatives already exist
26:22
within the system in order to solve for
26:24
the problems which is why there is no
26:25
use in actually abandoning the electoral
26:27
college
26:28
one thing that you have probably noticed
26:30
throughout listening to
26:31
these speeches is that the proposition
26:33
team entirely focuses their reasons as
26:35
to why we should abandon the electoral
26:37
college
26:38
due to problems that merely already
26:40
exist or
26:41
just due to merely problems that are
26:43
extrinsic to the status quo
26:45
problems that are not actually inherent
26:47
to the electoral college which is why we
26:49
instead propose
26:50
that although the electoral college may
26:52
be bad this only suggests that these are
26:54
extrinsic issues that should be fixed by
26:55
imposing another reform
26:57
uh through actually doing this through a
26:59
bi-district basis rather than one that
27:01
is entirely winner takes all such as the
27:04
status quo system that we have right now
27:06
which is why their argument about um
27:09
which is why their argument about this
27:11
uh counter advocacy essentially
27:13
decreasing representation is entirely
27:15
not true they fail to actually take into
27:16
account how the electoral college is
27:18
currently preserving
27:19
uh specific groups of people such as
27:21
undocumented immigrants as well as
27:23
felons
27:23
who literally cannot vote yes who
27:26
literally cannot vote right now
27:28
uh because of the ways that uh
27:32
mainly because of the ways of because of
27:34
those who
27:35
cannot vote are not allowed to the
27:38
popular vote not only does not actually
27:39
include their voices but it actually
27:40
excludes them
27:41
through not prioritizing the electoral
27:43
college which is why only the
27:45
through which is why only through such a
27:47
reform type basis can we actually
27:49
uh solve for any of these issues such as
27:51
misrepresentation
27:52
in order to put this counter plan into
27:54
more specific context for example
27:57
uh sorry does somebody have a point of
27:58
information yeah i do yeah go ahead
28:01
so counting these groups that can’t vote
28:04
but not letting them vote how is that
28:06
more representative
28:08
than having a popular vote once again
28:11
our argument is that when these people
28:12
are actually included into the
28:14
electoral process not only does this
28:16
increase estates
28:17
uh like amount of electoral suits that
28:19
they have but there is a direct
28:21
correlation with
28:22
the amount of interest that these groups
28:24
of people are actually represented in
28:25
i.e that they actually have a voice
28:27
um you know and where they live like
28:29
people are actually listening to them
28:31
we don’t think that like just their
28:33
existence is you know like sideline in
28:35
states like texas i think that probably
28:37
like the immigration rights movement
28:39
in texas is a lot more active than it is
28:41
in the north for example
28:42
but in order to put this counter
28:44
advocacy into more context let’s
28:46
go ahead and use this an example and say
28:47
you have a roommate and maybe his name
28:49
is
28:49
alexander dela rosa you are deciding
28:51
what to order from
28:53
you know yes go to pizza place pizza hut
28:55
because we all know that’s like
28:56
the most supreme peace to the place but
28:58
your roommate is dead set on wingstop
29:00
saying he’s not feeling pizza really
29:02
saying he’s not feeling pizza really but
29:04
luckily
29:05
pizza hut has wing street so we can both
29:07
get what we want right both pizza and
29:08
wings
29:09
our argument is that the counter
29:11
advocacy is essentially uh
29:12
this combination uh so
29:16
every state actually has a say in what
29:18
they want this specifically means
29:20
that every state is essentially
29:22
allocating their electoral votes on a
29:24
bi-district level based on the popular
29:26
vote
29:26
which means that it’s almost not
29:28
different from the
29:30
popular vote which the proposition
29:31
institutes but it’s actually better
29:33
because it still utilizes the electoral
29:35
college by
29:37
specifically including the popular vote
29:40
by district and therefore
29:42
giving the rest of the two electoral
29:44
seats are decided by the senate to the
29:46
overall state
29:47
or that is decided by the overall state
29:51
popular vote which essentially means
29:53
that
29:54
because the electoral college is already
29:56
set up to where everybody’s
29:58
states is essentially equally
30:00
represented it means that
30:02
especially on a local level uh these
30:05
citizens and the people are still going
30:06
to be
30:07
more actively represented rather than
30:08
them uh doing things such as
30:10
voting individually and completely
30:12
excluding the voices of
30:14
you know their loved ones for example
30:15
who either are criminal failings or are
30:17
undocumented uh but more specifically
30:20
they also attempt to say
30:22
or they attempt to give this one
30:23
argument that the popular vote would
30:26
essentially lead to a less polarized
30:28
campaigning because it
30:29
actually focuses people’s interest but
30:31
this is entirely not true
30:33
since not only are arguments about since
30:36
it’s already explained this and supports
30:37
how certain voices are excluded
30:39
but also is that the popular vote would
30:41
only further encourage
30:43
um candidates to specifically campaign
30:46
in certain areas those are more
30:47
populated such as california and texas
30:49
in order to win the most seeds
30:51
under a bi-district uh voting system i.e
30:54
that
30:55
through which we advocate through the
30:56
counter plan people are actually
30:58
represented
30:59
through uh through every district which
31:02
means that there is no problem with
31:04
even people who live in rural areas for
31:06
example and they are actually over
31:08
or they’re actually represented because
31:09
their vote matters and
31:11
candidates actually have incentives to
31:13
campaign in these areas
31:14
the popular vote just incentivizes
31:16
candidates in order just
31:18
incentivizes candidates to vote for
31:20
those areas which are
31:21
more metropolitan to actually have
31:22
higher populations in order to render
31:24
votes
31:26
however i think that the most important
31:29
takeaway here
31:30
is that all the issues that the
31:32
proposition outlines as to why they like
31:34
to where
31:34
college are bad are essentially drops in
31:36
the bucket for example they mention
31:37
things such as
31:38
faithless electors but actually
31:40
according to han spabosky which
31:42
is a researcher for the heritage
31:45
foundation
31:46
states that these things are not
31:47
actually really issues even outlands
31:49
from the 2016 election for example
31:51
there’s only three of those faithless
31:52
electors
31:53
and ever since then there has been a
31:54
supreme court that has already upheld
31:57
um the state’s ability in order to
31:59
nullify these votes
32:00
so their electors can actually vote
32:02
properly this means that there are
32:03
already incentives and
32:04
rules in place that have happened since
32:06
20 since 2016 in order to solve these
32:08
issues
32:09
which is why the problem is not
32:10
necessarily that the electoral college
32:12
is entirely bad and we have to
32:14
essentially damn it but rather that we
32:16
have to fix the problems that the
32:17
electoral college currently has by
32:18
instituting reform
32:23
thank you very much now if everybody
32:25
will click on their video again
32:29
[Music]
32:30
we now have an opportunity we’ll now
32:33
have an opportunity for you to give
32:35
floor speeches
32:36
so if you want to give a floor speech if
32:38
you would raise your hand or you can do
32:40
it
32:41
by clicking under the participants list
32:43
if you want to do that
32:44
and i will call on you and you will have
32:47
two minutes
32:48
to either speak for or against the topic
32:51
okay
32:52
so who would like to
32:56
give a short floor speech
33:02
and also if you put it in gallery view
33:05
as opposed to speaker view
33:06
it’s a little bit easier for me to see
33:10
thank you no one wants to give a floor
33:14
speech
33:15
hi mr cisneros
33:20
um uh my audio is working okay
33:23
right before i you’re good
33:26
um so i would just like to give some of
33:28
my thoughts
33:29
on advocating for the government so
33:32
advocating for why the electoral college
33:34
should be abolished uh i will be
33:37
specifically talking about some
33:38
arguments brought up
33:40
um i specifically want to talk about the
33:42
counter advocacy first
33:44
uh just on my personal thoughts on what
33:45
is going on that i would kind of
33:47
want to say that i personally believe
33:49
that the counter advocacy might not
33:51
actually
33:51
solve um a key point that i would like
33:55
to think too that kind of
33:56
really persuaded me on this side was
33:58
just understanding that these
33:59
underrepresented groups that the
34:00
negation brings up in their speech
34:03
that they may not actually be
34:04
represented even in the world of the
34:06
counter advocacy brought up by the
34:09
negation
34:10
they still may not constitutionally have
34:11
the right to vote the notion that he
34:13
gave to me is that then if they don’t
34:15
really have the right to vote in the
34:16
counter advocacy then
34:18
what really is the point it kind of
34:19
seems like it’s just a power move
34:21
for these states to gain uh more
34:23
electoral college boats
34:25
uh that mainly the dominant groups in
34:26
their states previously
34:28
uh can still advocate for uh it’s just
34:31
kind of a power move for the states
34:33
as such i would just believe then the
34:35
structural problems that the affirmative
34:37
brings up is reasonings as to why we
34:39
should
34:39
abolish the electoral college such as it
34:42
gives too much power to the swing states
34:44
influences elections too much through
34:46
the swing states
34:47
still act as problems that the counter
34:49
advocacy doesn’t really solve
34:52
[Music]
34:55
and then just one last point too about
34:56
the affirmative is just understanding
34:58
that
34:58
currently the united states
34:59
unfortunately does have one of the
35:01
lowest voter turnouts
35:03
across the globe when compared to other
35:04
democratic nations and then also one key
35:07
fact that distincts ours from others is
35:09
that the united states is one of the few
35:11
that actually uses
35:12
an electoral college system in its
35:14
elections when compared to these other
35:16
uh nations that practice free and fair
35:18
elections
35:20
okay that’s your time thank you very
35:22
much
35:23
would anyone else like to give a floor
35:25
speech
35:28
a two-minute floor speech from the floor
35:34
i’m not seeing any hands help me out
35:37
here i’m dying come on
35:40
where are we where are our advocates
35:46
so the four debaters were that
35:47
articulate that they left nothing left
35:49
for you to say
35:56
okay well
36:00
if there are no floor speeches
36:05
we will then begin with our rebuttals
36:08
each side will have
36:09
one rebuttal it is a four-minute speech
36:13
there are no points of information in
36:16
the rebuttal
36:17
i would ask that you go back and click
36:19
on that hide non-video participants
36:21
again please
36:28
there we go
36:31
again you have to hover over someone
36:35
else and click hide non-video
36:39
participants
36:46
okay excellent all right um
36:49
so now we’ll begin our two rebuttals
36:51
with the negative
36:52
uh alex de la rosa you have four minutes
36:55
alex
36:59
cool so thank you um so i’d like to
37:01
address the for the floor speech first
37:02
and like
37:03
kind of so the first argument i kind of
37:05
want to present is just like a basic
37:06
cost benefit analysis right
37:08
under the status quo these people have
37:09
zero representation
37:11
because of the way that the the
37:12
constitution outlines who can and cannot
37:14
vote
37:14
the our advocacy at least gives them
37:16
some uh
37:18
way to actually have an impact on the
37:20
election right and
37:21
to the to the representation point
37:23
because of the fact that
37:25
that these uh these elections are done
37:28
by
37:29
the district by district level they’re
37:30
more likely to be uh to be represented
37:32
because of the fact that
37:34
the uh our counter advocacy serves as
37:37
local empowerment to these places right
37:39
because of the
37:39
fact that these elections are more
37:41
centered and local right they’re more
37:42
likely to be reflective of the general
37:44
needs of that locality
37:45
right and furthermore right the net
37:47
benefit is also that a lot of these
37:49
people who are in
37:50
prison right are people who are people
37:52
of color who have been affected by
37:54
racist uh a racist criminal justice
37:56
system right so because of
37:57
because of that and because of the fact
37:59
of the ableism of the
38:00
the mentally incapacitated prohibition
38:03
right we’re actually
38:04
giving people some weight in the
38:05
election right even if they cannot vote
38:06
they can have some weight in the
38:08
election
38:08
under the affirmative proposition this
38:10
goes away completely right
38:12
so moving on to like some of the general
38:14
points that the affirmative makes
38:16
right they say that the uh that the
38:19
winner take all system gets in the way
38:20
of the third party system but this isn’t
38:22
exclusive to the electoral college right
38:24
we’re at inner counter advocacy we’re
38:25
actually getting a
38:27
getting rid of the system and because of
38:28
the fact that it’s done
38:30
on a district by district level third
38:31
parties are now able to win
38:33
electoral votes in the electoral college
38:35
if they manage to win a
38:36
a particular district uh they say that
38:39
um that there’s going to be a load
38:42
there’s lower voter turnout because of
38:43
the electoral college but as like
38:45
my partner establishes a lot of the
38:46
problems that they bring up about the
38:47
electoral college aren’t exclusive to
38:49
the electoral college itself right
38:51
uh they so and the affirmative like the
38:54
the proposition assumes that the lower
38:55
voter turnout trends will continue
38:57
if we adopt the counter advocacy right
38:59
they’re just saying that like because we
39:00
have lower voter turnout now with the
39:02
electoral college that even if we do a
39:03
reform that that trend will stay the
39:05
same that doesn’t that argument doesn’t
39:06
hold up
39:08
um they said that the representation
39:12
our representation doesn’t solve because
39:13
people can’t vote and they’re choosing
39:15
not to participate but for a lot of
39:16
these people
39:17
they’re legally restricted not to vote
39:19
and this has serious implications when
39:20
it comes to things like racism
39:22
ableism and other forms of nationalism
39:25
that
39:25
perpetuate violence against these people
39:27
against these people again even
39:29
in the uh counter-advocacy even if these
39:32
people aren’t able to vote they at least
39:33
have some weight in the election because
39:34
their
39:35
populations impact how the census
39:37
conducted and how electoral votes
39:39
are allocated on a state by state basis
39:42
uh again they say they bring up the
39:44
point about faithless electors but as my
39:45
opponent
39:46
as my partner brings up this is a pretty
39:48
much a non-issue when it comes to
39:49
elections right
39:50
the there have already been laws in
39:52
place to to
39:54
force states to actually uh
39:57
you know like to tie their electors to
39:59
the popular vote right
40:01
so this problem uh again is also not
40:03
unique to the electoral college so
40:04
basically
40:06
every like particular bringing about the
40:07
electoral college has
40:09
to do with other things outside of the
40:11
electoral college
40:12
if you if you vote for the uh for our
40:15
counter advocacy
40:16
right you get people who otherwise would
40:18
not have any way on the election
40:20
actually having wait some way in the
40:22
election even if they cannot physically
40:23
vote
40:24
two we get rid of uh we get rid of this
40:27
problem of uh people winning the popul
40:31
winning the electoral college and not
40:32
winning the popular because because
40:34
electoral votes
40:35
are actually uh are actually represented
40:38
within the electoral college so for
40:40
these reasons we urge that you vote for
40:42
the counter advocacy and the opposition
40:44
thank you
40:46
thanks very much for those remarks and
40:48
now jacob everett will conclude the
40:50
debate
40:55
all right um before i start i just want
40:58
to give one last thanks to everyone for
40:59
coming out
41:01
all right but first i’m going to start
41:02
off with just telling you why you’re
41:04
going to be voting to abolish the uh
41:06
to abolish the uh electoral college uh
41:09
the biggest reason is that it creates a
41:10
low voter turnout
41:11
now the only argument that they have on
41:13
this is that this is something that will
41:14
happen post the electoral college but
41:16
you can look at the npr article that i
41:18
even cited
41:19
that tells you specifically why the
41:20
electoral college is the problem here
41:22
the there were three reasons that i
41:24
outlined the first is that
41:26
uh voters in swing states are told to
41:29
vote more than voters who aren’t in
41:30
swing states
41:31
i.e in places like florida there uh
41:33
there’s more ads on tv there’s more
41:35
uh door knockers and there’s more uh
41:37
there’s more just tactics that are used
41:39
to increase the amount of people that co
41:41
that uh show up at the polls and the
41:44
second reason i or that’s specifically
41:46
because
41:46
the electoral college creates swing
41:48
states the second reason that i point
41:50
out why uh
41:51
why swing or why the electoral college
41:53
creates a little border turnout
41:55
is also because the uh the swing states
41:58
may uh
41:58
create laws to make it more convenient
42:01
for people to come
42:02
to show up to the polls things like
42:03
same-day voter registration
42:05
no excuse absentee voting and even
42:07
mail-in voting has historically been
42:08
reserved to swing states and suing
42:10
states exclusively
42:11
they don’t tell you that uh we’re
42:13
telling you specifically that this is
42:15
because swing
42:16
states were created and the only reason
42:17
that we have swing states is because of
42:19
the electoral college
42:20
don’t buy into any of their arguments
42:22
that say that any of this happens post
42:23
implementation
42:24
uh proposed abolition of the or of the
42:28
electoral college
42:29
all of this is stuff that we’re seeing
42:30
specifically because swing states exist
42:33
the third reason why i told you that low
42:34
voter turnout is created because of the
42:36
electoral college
42:37
is that voters are more likely to be
42:39
discouraged from voting in non-swing
42:40
states because voters are less likely to
42:42
show up to the ballot box if they’re
42:44
sure that the electors are going to vote
42:45
one way or the other
42:46
i.e someone who lives in texas might not
42:49
show up to the ballot box to vote
42:51
to vote for a democrat because they know
42:52
that texas is going to vote republican
42:54
it has historically always voted
42:56
republican
42:57
there’s no getting out of this all of
42:59
this is created specifically because the
43:01
electoral college exists
43:02
and uses its power to create swing
43:04
states which
43:05
are bad and they cause low voter turnout
43:08
you’re also going to vote on the idea
43:10
that
43:11
that a lack of representation is less
43:13
democratic now
43:14
they tried to get you or they tried to
43:15
get us on this by saying that they
43:17
represent more voters in their counter
43:18
advocacy but this isn’t true for a few
43:20
reasons
43:21
the first of which is that these voters
43:23
that they’re talking about
43:24
literally cannot vote all that all that
43:27
then the all that
43:28
the census does is it counts them as
43:30
there and that tells the state how many
43:32
electors they’re allowed to have
43:34
that doesn’t necessarily mean that
43:36
voters
43:37
are gonna get that vote that their vote
43:39
is going to count or that how they want
43:41
to vote is going to account
43:42
they specifically even pointed out
43:43
undocumented immigrants as one of the
43:45
groups
43:45
that that is uh affected by the
43:48
electoral college and benefits from it
43:50
but this is obviously not true because
43:52
trump is the president
43:54
he won the electoral college votes but
43:56
not the popular vote
43:57
and he built his entire campaign off of
44:00
the idea that undocumented
44:01
immigrants were a problem that needed to
44:04
be solved
44:04
they aren’t going to win that
44:06
undocumented immigrant are there are
44:08
going to be
44:08
more properly represented because we
44:10
literally saw
44:11
four years ago that they weren’t
44:13
properly represented through the
44:14
electoral college
44:16
and the the next problem with the idea
44:18
that the electoral college gives more
44:19
representation is the i air is the
44:21
faithless voters or is the faithless
44:23
voters
44:24
argument that i brought up you’re going
44:25
to look at the brookings institute
44:27
article that i referenced several times
44:29
in my first speech in this uh the
44:31
or in this wes points out that faithless
44:33
voters
44:34
were that faithless voters are were
44:36
upheld in court
44:37
as to being able to vote however they
44:39
want 18 states currently have no laws on
44:42
electors
44:43
and they only get a fine if they’re
44:45
caught uh
44:46
if they’re caught voting a way that’s
44:47
different from what they’re supposed to
44:49
do
44:49
this is less democratic by far and it
44:51
doesn’t properly show representation
44:53
you’re also going to vote on us because
44:55
we have shown through a poll taken last
44:57
year that more americans favor the
44:59
abolition of the electoral college in a
45:01
popular vote
45:02
that’s your time thank you
45:05
all very much for a a good and
45:08
thoughtful discussion i’m going to
45:11
release the poll now and so
45:15
you can vote to um
45:18
either vote to abolish the electoral
45:20
college
45:21
or vote to not abolish the electoral
45:23
college and go with the proportional
45:26
representation that unt advocated
45:32
um just want to say while all of y’all
45:33
are voting that uh
45:35
um you know dr lane and i have talked
45:38
about
45:39
getting together and doing this type of
45:40
debate for for a couple of years several
45:43
years now
45:44
and um you know it took a pandemic to
45:46
make us do it i guess
45:48
but uh hopefully it’ll be the the first
45:51
of many that we get to do and make you
45:53
maybe
45:53
include some of the other schools as
45:55
well
45:58
brian anything else that you want to add
46:00
while people are
46:02
casting their votes i just want to thank
46:04
everyone for uh joining us
46:06
um i loved your comment it takes a
46:08
pandemic
46:10
who knows what a presidential election
46:12
could lead us to do oh huh
46:14
oh my gosh i would like to take this
46:16
opportunity to thank all of the debaters
46:18
though
46:18
thanks very much all of you a fantastic
46:20
job did a great job
46:27
27 of 30 precincts are in
46:31
i guess we shouldn’t i guess i don’t
46:35
are y’all voting for yourselves here no
46:38
come on
46:42
i guess we have it all
46:46
anybody else still need to vote
46:50
nope okay
46:54
so by a vote of
46:57
23 to 5 we are
47:01
abolishing the electoral college
47:04
thank you all so very very much uh for
47:07
coming out tonight
47:09
i appreciate north texas for joining us
47:11
in this endeavor
47:14
with a great appreciation right ryan
47:17
thank you all very much y’all have a
47:18
good pleasant evening
47:27
if you enjoyed this program please
47:29
consider supporting the museum by
47:31
visiting www.lbjmuseum.com
47:35
to make a one-time donation or become a
47:37
member
47:39
and friend us on facebook to keep up
47:42
with events
47:43
and learn about this day in history
