Electoral College

Now that we've entered Round 3 I can finally start answering questions and presenting real points. I'd like to look first at my opponents initial arguments.Because this point is essential in understanding a lot of the electoral college, I will address my opponents second point, "Winner take all system," first.Saying states have a winner take all system is like saying America as a whole has a winner take all system. Imagine an election where a candidate won the presidency at a ratio of 60%-40%. The 40% of people who voted for the other candidate basically had their votes ignored. After all, why can't my candidate have 40% of the presidency while we give the remaining 60% to the winner? Obviously this is a silly question, but the same idea holds true in regard to each state. America is not meant to be one big place split into 52 territories to make organization easier. It is 52 territories brought together under a single banner. Each territory is meant to be treated as an individual of its own. So when you vote, you're not voting for who america says should be president. You are voting for who your state will say should be the president. This is why we have a winner take all system. You're voting for your state. So in reality, there are 51 different elections going on at the same time, voting on the Electoral College. America, again, is not meant to be a democracy. Because of this, the election should not be decided by the popular vote, rather the concensus of the american territories.Now I would like to turn to my opponents first point - "Disproportionate voting power."The biggest point presented by my opponent here is the '22%' statistic. We've already established why we have a winner-take-all system. It is foundational to what America is about. Imagine there's no disproportionate voting, and each state is perfectly represented by population. Now imagine an election between two presidential candidates. Suppose one candidate won just over 50% of the states by just over 50% of the vote in each. This candidate now won the election with just over 25% of the vote. Therefore, this is not an issue with the electoral college but state voting in general. This, like the number presented by my opponent, is incredibly unlikely. Disproportion is used to ensure each territory has at least 3 votes, thus an adequate say, in an election.My opponents third point - "Swing States"Everything about this argument is just wrong. Most states vote reliably in one direction because their area tends to have a specific interest. Therefore it would be entirely logical to assume that said state would vote consistently for a political party with their interest in mind. If a state isn't a swing state, then they clearly don't want more attention from the candidates. If a state wants more attention from a candidate, their divided interests will bring them closer and closer to that 50%-50% area, requiring them to get attention. The state of California is perfectly content with the attention they're given, otherwise they would not continue to vote so passionately to one side. There is no confliction in who they would like to support, and they therefore need not have valuable time and recourses wasted on visiting them. The Swing States change - they're the places that need convincing. Swing States, contrary to what my opponent has said here, do not allow candidates to complete ignore states either. Even though some states are consistent "blue's" or "red's" that doesn't mean a candidate can completely ignore them, as they're always capable of changing their vote were they offended.My opponents fourth point - "Faithless Electors"I agree for the most part. I do think it should be possible for such a thing to happen as a final safeguard against dangerous men. The penalty for such a course of action, however, should be greater. A greater penalty would dissuade from faithless voting unless it was absolutely essential to the survival of the country. This is an area that should receive some tweaking.Since I am unable to make any comments on my opponents rebuttal until the final round, I will leave it here. I look forward to my opponents final reply.