Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Territories of the US are indeed not represented, and their populations do exceed 4 million. But of this population only a small, small fraction of them would be registered voters or vote during an election, so the potential impact these territory's could have would be smaller than you think. Also only if all of the voters voted for one candidate would these territories impact an election, but states often vote 305 one side, 30% the other side, and then the remaining 40% decide the victor. So the true voting potential these territories could have in an election is considerably smaller than implied. You claim that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness, but in the 2000 election of Bush the electoral system was used to successfully determine who won the state of Florida. At the time of the election a flurry of recounts and cries of voter fraud left the state in disorder, and in popular vote the outcome may have never been known. The electoral college though determined the victor of the election after the Supreme Court declared the winner in the state of Florida and ended the election. Had there been no electoral system it would be very possible that the Florida recount would have dragged on and on. During that time there would not have been a president because Clinton's two terms were up and his replacement was yet to be decided. The electoral college in 2000 gave us a person to be president and a leader. in direct popular vote the implications that occurred in Florida may have triggered a recount or a new election, and that would have left the country without a president for months, possibly even up to the 9/11 attacks which came barely months after the election ended.... As for the idea that direct popular votes strengthens democracy, The regional advantage that candidates have exists because of the uneven distribution of democrats and republicans through the US. in population numbers there are more Democrats than Republicans in New York and there is a great number of Republicans to Democrats in Texas. Popular votes would not eliminate this regional influence because the electoral college does not create this influence, it just exists naturally among populations.... Direct popular vote gives each person one vote, so California would have 37 million voices and thus 37 million votes, Wyoming on the other hand has a population of 540,000 voices and thus have only 540,000 votes. If a political candidate were to try to gain votes all they would have to do is try to win a few large states and win the election regardless of what smaller states have to say. since yo would need about 30 Wyomings to get one California.... In an electoral college though each small state is granted much higher voting power. Wyoming has 3 votes for 540,000 people and California has 55 votes for 37 million people 37 million / 55 = 670,000 people per one electoral vote in California 540,000 / 3 = 180,000 people per one electoral vote in Wyoming The electoral system allows smaller states to have a far greater impact in elections then a direct popular vote system would because in direct popular vote, candidates would only campaign in massive states like Illinois, California, Texas, Florida, etc. With the electoral college though smaller states have a greater say and so states such as Iowa or New Hampshire now have much more political say then they would otherwise have. In the electoral college all votes are counted and tallied too, but direct popular vote would not encourage minority parties to have greater leverage. If a MINORITY voted in a direct popular vote and so did the MAJORITY, then the majority would still snuff out the minority because a majority, literally by definition, would be bigger. So how would this encourage voter participation if there is always a majority in an area? Lastly, in 2008 New York had 31 votes and Florida had 27...... http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Also New York didnt cast 1 million more votes, They actually cast 800,000 LESS votes, New York Votes = 7.5 million Florida Votes = 8.3 million http://uselectionatlas.org... http://uselectionatlas.org... Beside Pro's facts being wrong, this true set of data reinforces my point here. New York has a larger population (19.5 mil) then Florida (18.5) mil, and larger electoral count than Florida (31 to 27) 19.5 / 31 = 630,000 electoral votes per person 18.5 / 27 = 685,185 electoral votes per person This goes to show that the electoral college allows small states (or in this case smaller states) to have a more powerful say in elections then states with a larger population. In a direct popular vote the states with the largest populations would reign supreme over other states because of sheer numbers. In the electoral system though smaller states have increased voting power so that they can play a larger role in determining who becomes president.