The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

"I must say immediately, why is it that you sourced all your other facts but not this one? I would like to see you provide evidence of all *4* times this happened." To start, I wish to provide you with a source that lists the four times in which the electoral college has given the presidential victory to the candidate that did not win the popular vote: http://www.factcheck.org... "Secondly, even if true this does not demonstrate the fact you so proclaim, that the electoral college is ineffective. This article states: 'There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States.'" Exactly. As it currently stands, there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires the electors to vote with the popular vote in their state. This is precisely one of the downfalls of the electoral college. If electors are not required to vote with the majority, there will always be the chance that it may vote against what the population wants and it will vote to serve its own interests, rather than that of the majority. If anything, my opponent has conceded to this point of my argument. "The duty of the electoral college is to place their votes for the presidential candidates and they have done that every single time, resulting in a very effective process. Although you may disagree with the direct vs non direct voting system, you cannot say that the electoral college in ineffective. Although it is wrong that the Electoral College is in effective, it is true that the Electoral College isn't obligated to vote the popular vote, which some say is wrong." As I cited above, there have been cases where the electoral college has failed in handing the victory to the presidential candidate that the majority of the population wanted. The way the electoral college is set up now, as I believe I've referenced before, a candidate can win the presidential election while winning approximate 22% of the population vote. http://www.youtube.com... "I believe it is vitally important to have men and women of politics, education and wisdom voting for the president instead of the masses. Look at the masses now, if they could have their way, the popular vote would be for a hopeless buffoon, a leading figure in culture. This is a country to be run. It needs the right type of leader to be elected, not the one that the masses like the most." This is a baseless assumption against the general population. To state that, as a people, we would rather elect someone such as Kim Kardashian as our president rather than an actual political leader is false. On balance, I would be willing to provide a near-guarantee that many people would not just elect local celebrities for leaders. "With presidential elections that result in a popularity and advertising contest, we need a stage / phase that can base their decision more wisely AND with what the masses want. The E.C is not ineffective, and it is necessary to keep our country running and not become a laughing stock of the world." Yes, the presidential election is a large advertising contest throughout most of the election process. The phase in which people can work to base their decisions on factual evidence are the presidential debates. That is the phase where each candidate sits down as we are doing right now and they hash it out over topics that are important to the people and to the country as a whole. It is during this time in the election process that the general population gets a chance to see exactly what each candidate wants to do with the country and how they're going to do it. Again, I feel I must stress the importance of how we do not have an impartial college either. As I stated above, in many states the electors that sit on the college are chosen by the reigning political parties of the day and age. This means that minority parties are unlikely to stand a chance in the presidential election as well. Sources: http://www.factcheck.org...