Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. My partner and I are on the con side. Our points are: 1. The Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections. 2. there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts 3. Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways 4. The Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority. My first point is the Electoral College protects small states influence within the presidential elections. According to Kristina Dell, "with a direct popular vote. .. the selection of the president would often be the biggest, most populous states with little attention paid to smaller ones. " Without the Electoral College the voices of small states would be drowned out by the larger ones. Bob Nutting of the Maine House Republicans says, "In the election of 2008, because all votes in the Electoral College are important, Maine saw candidates and their surrogates. If the criteria for winning were the popular vote, they would have camped out in California, Texas, New York, Florida and other populous states. " The Electoral College is a necessity in order to give small states the right to have a voice in presidential elections. My second point is that there is a far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts. As Professor Judith Best argues, "an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil. " This is the function now played by the Electoral College. To its defenders, it does so in two ways. One, it saves the nation "from the effects of a vague outcome. " In this way, it confers the necessary legitimacy even in the face of close elections. And two, it also "protects the nation from the crisis of a disputed election. " In a direct popular vote, during a close election, candidates will be too tempted to challenge every result. Whereas before if you carry a state by 10% there is no reason to challenge under the Electoral College, now a nationwide deadlock will ensure each state undergoes a recount. The judiciary committee once again explains, if one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. And in a little while, the whole electorate is involved. My third point is that direct popular vote is flawed in many ways. Proponents of a direct popular vote too often over simplify the question at hand. They fail to realize that, like any other system, direct popular vote will be vulnerable to numerous problems. One such problem is the increased threat of vote fraud. The Electoral College is a series of self-sealing containers, so that each state does not influence the outcome of another. If fraud occurs, it is isolated. In a direct election, however, each vote is of premium importance to the national decision. As such, agents within the election will have a far greater decision to influence votes. Consider an election that stays in an almost complete deadlock throughout the day. As word travels, the urgency of West Coast votes becomes so great that the temptation to commit fraud by local officials is overwhelming. The election is then illegitimate. The Electoral College avoids this because even if one county of one state commits fraud, it will not be enough to impact the overall election. (This is why I urge you to vote con) My fourth point is the Electoral College creates a reasonable, moderate majority. The cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. This government ensures liberty and equality maintain an optimal balance for all citizens. As former senator James Eastland writes, "Because of winner-take-all (under the electoral system), a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each State; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. Since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same votes. Both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interest which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition. " This has so many great benefits, including reasonable polices that are widely appropriate in nature. Under a direct popular vote, no such system would hold. Candidates must currently be able to get a majority of votes in a statewide election to obtain even a single electoral vote. Ideologically extreme candidates are discouraged from running because they know they cannot appeal to that wide of an electorate. Under direct popular vote, however, there is no need to win statewide majorities and therefore elections will become crowded with extreme candidates. This will further polarize politics as candidates make specific appeals to narrow voter interests. Then, the President will not be elected by a large body politic. He or she will be the voice of only a few.