The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

Thank you for the kind words, I'm glad to see that this proposition has been accepted. While your proposal is a bit more narrowly focused than I anticipated, I will accept the challenge. To clarify, the debate will be regarding the abolishment of the electoral college with instead the popular vote deciding the president, and I am pro. With the electoral college, there is very little incentive for voters in states that have a strong majority for one party to vote, since most states award all of the electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. In a state like California, for example, there are so many democrats that a Republican voter would feel as though there were no reason to vote, because it doesn't matter. And the truth is that it wouldn't, California's 55 electoral votes will always go to the democratic candidate, and the voice of all others will be silenced. Not only is this unfair to the Republican candidate (in California), it is especially unfair to the 3rd party candidate who has little hope of acquiring any electoral votes. Even if the 3rd party managed to win a state, and neither of the major parties were able to get the required number of votes, the House of Representatives would decide the outcome. In most cases, the result of a 3rd party running is that the party least like them is helped out, like Perot stealing votes from Dole. With a popular vote, a 3rd party would have to receive a substantial number of votes to alter the outcome of the election, which might be possible after several elections to build up support. You might argue that with a popular vote a candidate could win by pandering only to cities and densely populated states. However, with the current system, a candidate can win with only 11 states...is that more fair? Because we have a two party system (which is encouraged by the electoral college), swing states become the only states that really matters to the politicians. All of the advertising money and speeches are given in states like Florida and Ohio where they have voted for both parties in recent history. The history of the electoral college should be taken into account when we consider its worth today. According to a professor of law at Yale University, "At the founding of the country, the deepest schisms ran not between large and small states but between North and South." The reason for the electoral college was so that states with a large slave population would receive representation for those slaves, even though they were not allowed to vote. In those days, a slave counted as 3/5 of a person for population count in determining the number of representatives and hence, the number of electors. Women's suffrage was also discouraged (or at least, not encouraged), because allowing more women (or slaves or any other group) would not give a state more clout in deciding the election because their number of electors is fixed. With a popular vote, a higher turnout of voters means that a state is more likely to have an impact on the national election. Finally, no other state gubernatorial election relies on an electorate, nor does any other country for that matter. So why does it make sense for electing the president of the United States? http://www.law.yale.edu...