Electoral Debate Transcript

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