Denver Gazette Runs Op-Ed on Tonight’s Debate between Electoral College and NPV

Electoral College vs. NVP — Civilly, Thoughtfully

By Trent England and Benjamin Waddell

The 2020 presidential debates were a study in contrasts. Last week’s version was civil, with each candidate putting forth their arguments and vision for the country, in turn, without much interruption. On the other hand, the first debate was a verbal wrestling match, with the candidates continually interrupting each other and engaging in personal attacks. Whereas the initial debate produced no insights for undecided voters, last week’s offered them an opportunity to distinguish between platforms, policies, and priorities.

Civil debate on fundamental issues facing society is vital to the future of our country. Robust discussion expands knowledge in a way that’s impossible when just one side of a topic is heard. The great Western philosophers spoke eloquently about the importance of hearing both sides of an issue. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel contended that when a thesis meets its antithesis a subsequent synthesis, which was greater than the sum of its parts, is developed. John Stuart Mill argued, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” No debater who is committed to an issue seeks compromise. Yet often the best way for a middle way to be found is by two sides eloquently articulating their principled positions.