Switching to a popular vote based Presidential Election system

There seems to be a little confusion here; my opponent claims in his resolution to be arguing PRO, whilst arguing against the title resolution. Let's set things straight right at the outset: my opponent is CON, arguing that the US should keep the Electoral College. I will be taking the PRO side of this debate, arguing that the US should abandon the Electoral College in favor of a system of popular election. ---------------- DEFINITIONS AND INITIAL SOURCES: Majority: "the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority ): the majority of the population. 2. a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... Federal Republic: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Confederation: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Electoral College: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) For the purposes of this debate, I am assuming that the constitutionality of such a change is not an issue, presumably dealt with by an amendment; also that the real world probability of having such a change implemented is not a concern. ---------- REFUTATION With that, let me address my opponent's opening arguments. 1. "Last time I checked, America was a confederation of STATES. " Clearly wrong; possibly a typo? The US is a Federal Republic. Just to be sure though, I have cited above a source for both types of government, and can provide more sources supporting same if anyone remains doubtful. "The Electoral College system provides for the protection of the rights of all 50 states, because it forces candidates to appeal to the voters in all parts of America. A nationwide vote tally could provide an incentive for a candidate to focus only on the most populous areas of the country, such as California, New York, or Texas, and ignore other areas such as Alaska, Rhode Island, or Maine. " I fail to recall an instance where our current system impelled a Presidential candidate to travel to Alaska; if my opponent has evidence of such an instance, he is more than welcome to bring it out next round. But, more seriously, this argument shows a misunderstanding of the way the Electoral college works. In a nutshell, the voters -state by state- choose through popular vote electors pledged to vote for one candidate or another. The number of electors per state is determined by the number of Representatives and Senators the state has; in the states with greater population, there are more electors (up to 55 in California as of 2008). . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thus, it is ALREADY in our hypothetical candidate's interest to campaign heavily in the more populous states, as there are more potential Electoral College votes to be won there than in, say, Rhode Island or Idaho. "If that was to happen, the interests of a particular region would trample the rights of the nation has a whole. " If the nation's choice was indicated by majority vote, and a large portion of that majority happened to live in certain regions (not scattered evenly across the whole country, in other words), the less-inhabited periphery would indeed have less say in that choice. Would that make the choice less democratic? Less representative of the will of the majority? In a direct election, 51% of the nation's vote is the same, no matter where the voters happen to live. If anything, the Electoral College system is the one guilty of wighting the vote in favour of particular regions; by proportioning out the vote by state, and guaranteeing the less-inhabited states at least 3 Electoral votes, the choice is weighted in favor of the voters in the smaller states. Example: Rhode Island . http://www.answers.com... has 1,060,000 people and 3 electoral votes. Divide 1,060,000 by three, and you get 353,333 and a third people per electoral vote. Texas . http://www.answers.com... has 23,900,000 people and 34 electoral votes. Divide that out, and you will find there are 702,941 and a fifth people competing for each electoral vote. Obviously, per person, Texans have half as much say in the choice of a president as those living in Rhode Island. So, no; this argument does not help my opponent's position. 2. "If we did switch to a popular vote system, there is a possibility that the majority of voters wouldn't be satisfied. " I confirm this. Indeed, it is a given, unless they all die first; human nature is to be dissatisfied with anything flawed, and any leader will sooner or later draw criticism. If, however, this argument is "There is a possibility that the majority of voters wouldn't be satisfied *because the person they voted for wasn't elected,*" I most emphatically deny it. Indeed, that is the whole premise of the direct system of voting: the person who gets the most votes wins. The largest group of voters will always be the ones who voted in the winner; thus, they have no reason to complain of the outcome. Technically, the largest group is not always an absolute majority; the example given by my opponent is such a case. Many countries use coalitions between parties unable individually to elect a national leader in order to gain an absolute majority; a similar system could hypothetically work here. --------------- OPENING ARGUMENT "Take for example, the 2000 presidential election. George Bush---50,456,002 votes nationwide 47.87% of total vote Al Gore---50,999,897 votes nationwide 48.38% of total vote Others---3,949,201 votes nationwide 3.75% of total vote" How kind of my opponent to provide me with my opening argument in favor of abandoning the Electoral College. Yes, let us take, for example, the 2000 election. . http://www.answers.com... In the statistic my opponent provided (and I assume it is correct), it is clear that the largest number of voters voted for Gore. Due mainly to the workings of the Electoral College, their candidate was not elected. In a direct voting system, where the president is chosen by popular vote alone, such a scenario would not arise, as there would be no mechanism to obstruct the voters from selecting the candidate that the largest number of them thought worthy. My proposal: The United States should abandon the Electoral College system for the Presidential Elections in favor of a system of direct popular vote because the Electoral College has been shown to obstruct the will of the greatest number. --------------- If my opponent feels I have neglected any of his points, he is welcome to bring them up next round, and I will address them then.