The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

I will respond to my opponent's arguments first, then defend my own, then go into closing statements.My opponent argues that voters were not educated when the electoral college was created. One thing he neglects is that that there were very few property owners back in the day, and most of them were rich. Out of a population of 3 million people (2.4 million free men and 600,000 slaves), only 38,818 people voted, or about 1.8% of the population.[1] By definition, the rich had access to land - a prerequisite to vote - in a addition to superior education. My opponent is now saying that issue is not important, but it actually is quite so - it is the first reason he gave, and the reasoning behind it is inaccurate. My opponent said that:"Back when the Electoral College was created, it was difficult for the average person to learn about politics. Candidates could not possibly travel around the country speaking to everyone and there were very few other ways to learn about a candidate. Because of this, most people were uneducated about politics and could not be relied upon to give an educated vote. The Electoral College was created so that the people voting for president would be educated."In other words, he argues it is outdated because people were uneducated and could not give an educated vote for President. I have proven that:A) Voters were not uneducatedandB) Popular vote was not nationally accepted until the 12th Presidential election, the 1832 election.This demolishes his argument, which, as I explained above, was the first he gave. Before moving on, I would like to issue a minor correction - Washington won 38,818 votes in 1788, not 11,000.As to the second, my opponent argues that votes not counting only applies to the Presidential election. I am not sure how this makes sense - he argues that it is unfair that Florida's votes were not allocated proportionally. I noted that Congressional elections are not done proportionally, and he says that is not the same. He argues that: "In the congress elections that Con references, congressmen win their seats by the number of popular votes they win, so even if your candidate doesn"t win, your vote still counted. In the presidential election, on the other hand, the president wins by getting enough electoral votes. This means that if your state votes for a different candidate than you do, then your vote does not effect who wins."This does not make sense. If your candidate loses, your vote de facto did not affect who wins. This is not specific to the Presidential elections, but to all elections that do not allocate seats proportionately to votes. My opponent says I have no example of where the EC was better than the popular vote; the 1876 election is a solid example of how the Electoral College can choose the right candidate. In 1876, the Democratic plan to win the election, called the 'Mississippi Plan', basically boiled down to suppressing black voters and white Republicans from voting in the South. Paramilitary units like the Red Shirts and White League intimidated voters, threatened violence, and disrupted Republican meetings. The strategy worked and the Democrats won the South and the popular vote comfortably, but they lost the election due to the fraud allegations.[2]As to the third point, my opponent argues that EC is disproportionate to the popular vote and must be abolished. Well, the fact of the matter is most elections in the US are not proportionate to popular vote - take, for example, the 2012 House elections, where Republicans only got 47.7% of the popular vote as compared to 49.0% for the Democrats,[3] but won 53.7% of the seats as opposed to only 46.3% for the Democrats.[4] Why should the House not follow the will of the people?As to my first argument, my opponent uses a straw man - he says that I said the EC was the founder's vision for this country, and that because the Constitution allowed slavery and kept women from voting we should ignore them. That was not my argument at all - my argument was and is that the United States is fundamentally a nation of states, not a nation divided into provinces, and that the EC uniquely represents this fact by allowing the states to decide how to allocate their electors. I mention what the founders envision, but only in the context of why the EC exists. I assume my opponent cedes both of those points since he never mentions them.Second, my opponent says my argument about the 2000 election favors his case because the 2000 election violated the will of the people. As I mentioned above, many other elections violate the will of the people, but my argument rests solely on the fact that the 2000 election punished Gore for lacking support in a gigantic portion of the country, punished Bush for not appealing to urban areas, and gave a great deal of power to the states on who would become President. The EC system rewarded Bush for focusing heavily on the state of New Hampshire, a moderate state, rather than focusing entirely on cultivating his conservative base (as would inevitably be the case under popular vote). It also forced both candidates towards the center, which is a positive thing. My opponent also asserts that the BOP is on me; it is not. In the rules, my opponent (Pro) clearly accepts the burden of proof, because he is the one advocating a policy change.Third, my opponent argues my point on third parties is contradictory. I understand it may be confusing, but what the EC does is it allows third parties to be relevant. In fact, a third party could technically have a shot to win if they could force the election to the House (which would happen if no candidate gets 271 electoral votes). On the other hand, the major parties can avert third party runs by adopting the platforms of successful third parties. After choosing the center-left Gore, for instance, the Democrats looked at the large number of Nader voters (mostly liberals, like Nader himself is) and nominated Kerry, a liberal. Kerry lost, but the third party forced its issue - liberalism - into the picture.Fourth, my opponent acknowledges the death of a candidate is a major issue, but says I give no reason why it is better than popular vote. This is not correct - I note that, under the EC, the electors could choose to elect the VP candidate instead of the President, which would prevent having to hold another election. This is a major advantage over the popular vote, which adopts no such provisions.Finally, my opponent argues it would be easy to switch to the popular vote. This is not the case. You need to get two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states to agree. That is not easy at all. The amendment process is sufficiently complicated that only 17 amendments that are not the Bill of Rights have been passed - an estimated 0.08 amendments per year. I assume my opponent cedes that the popular vote could be added without abolishing the EC, because he never commented on it.To sum up my argument - as a nation of states, the electoral college uniquely represents states' rights. It forces candidates to campaign across the country, forces them to moderate, allows a greater impact for third parties, allows a solid method for resolving the death of candidates, and can even be changed to reflect the popular vote entirely. The Electoral College is a solid method to decide the President, and does not need to be abolished.References:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...