The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote/run-off system

"This is going to be a pretty messy debate, since my opponent chose to go with the "shotgun method" of argumentation" You're the one that chose to copy-paste sources and previous statements, opposed to answering directly, not me. I responded to you directly by quoting you and following with a response. "Swing states...who cares?" "Lock states...who cares?" So your arguments against the massive weakness created by the EC is "who cares?" The argument by dismissal is a logical fallacy. Ignoring my arguments doesn't make them go away. I showed you how swing states and lock states are created by the EC, and how voters are disenfranchised because of it. Failure to refute, and dismissal of arguments- not a very good way to win a debate! "The difference between having votes counted at a state level or at a national level is merely symbolic" No it's not, because counting them on a national level guarantees that one vote be counted as one vote, and that all votes are counted equally. Counting them at a state level (and having the EC system) not only guarantees that some votes will count for more than others, but that many votes won't be counted at all. "An electoral college tie has never happened, and mathematically is extremely improbable" Yes, since it is unlikely we should ignore it. That seems like good policy for electing the president. You have admitted that your system is flawed, but it's "so unlikely" we should just pretend it's ok. "This is a poo argument" Wow, rather convincing! Oh, and another argument by dismissal. "I could just as easily say "direct vote can tie" even though thats mathematically improbable. " Now you're grasping at straws. First you say it's not a big deal, now you say "well your system has that problem too!" The difference is, when you have tens of millions of people voting the chances of a tie are literally asymptotically close to zero, whereas we can easily calculate the probability of a tie in any given presidential election, and they are far from negligible. And by the way, it seems as though you don't even understand the system you're supporting, and here's why: It's not ONLY a tie that would create chaos. It's if a candidate doesn't reach the 270 electoral votes. A third party candidate who wins a few states dramatically increase the probability of this scenario. So go ahead and re-write the argument: "BUT A TIE IS UNLIKELY!" because it only shows you don't understand the different scenarios the EC can create. "Why exactly does it matter if the house chooses the president...? " Because the president is supposed to be elected by the people, not Congress. If you have no problem with the House choosing the president, that's fine with me, but I hope those who might be voting on your side would be fine with it too! "It's nonsensical to criticize the EC for having two "main" candidates, when a runoff system does the exact same thing." A run-off system guarantees that ALL candidates who are running have equal opportunity to be voted for, and that all votes cast toward that candidate will count. Under the EC system, any vote cast for a non-mainstream party is like voting for Donald Duck. Under this system, since one vote = one vote, it doesn't matter if you win the right states, you have to gain support throughout the nation. The runoff system allows the two top candidates to run head-to-head, if no MAJORITY is earned in the original election. "it makes sense that the president would be decided by each specific state individually. " He/she isn't. The president is decided by the few swing states created by the EC system. The millions of democrats in Texas, the millions of Republicans in California- they can stay home. They don't matter. But those lucky few who happen to live in the right states, THEY MATTER! Your argument would only work if votes were apportioned under the EC, but they aren't- a winner-take-all format, dividing the US into 51 voting districts, guarantees that many, if not most states will have a certain outcome. It's only the states that are "close" that matter. "Not using something something to elect senators has nothing to do with the president" And yet, you're the one that brought up the nonsensical "we might as well abolish the senate as well" So when you stray on an irrelevant tangent and I respond to it, you're going to try and say MY argument is irrelevant? Sorry, those type of slimy debate tactics won't slide here. "They have a voice larger than their population to keep the large states from swamping the small states" I already refuted this argument too, and yet you keep trying to make it. The House and the Senate are the constructs that protect the small states from the large states. The election of the president is an entirely different issue. One vote should equal one vote- everyone's vote should be the same, no matter where you live. And by the way, if you did even just a little bit of math, the issue isn't large vs. small states, it's lock vs. swing states- because the few swing states are the only ones that matter. There's a reason 99% of the money is spent in 16 states. "No impact argued, who cares?" This seems to be a favorite response of yours. As long as you know that this argument by dismissal is a logical fallacy, I welcome your continued use of it! "My opponents arguments have literally no impacts at all" When you understand why ignoring and dismissing arguments isn't a valid debate strategy, then you'll understand why you haven't refuted the vast majority of what I have said in the least. "you prefer the status quo since he gives no compelling reason to change it. " CASE AND POINT: I've stated several times that a few states shouldn't decide the election, the importance of your vote shouldn't be determined by the state in which you happen to live, and that one vote should equal one vote- And yet your haphazard "ignore-and-assert" (ignore what I said, assert that it is flawed and that you have defeated it) strategy has gotten you nowhere in this debate. Not to mention, you made several claims which were lacking in evidence, that I asked you to give some for, and you didn't do that either. "Recall also that I've already won the debate since he gives no impacts and the status quo is preferred by default. " Once again, you're more interested in asserting "I WIN" than actually refuting my arguments, or defending your own position. I already pointed out that your "status quo is preferred!" argument is an appeal to tradition fallacy, but you ignored that too. "but the reason those states have so many electoral votes is precisely because they have higher populations...victories in all of the large states would be an almost certain popular vote victory" Miserably false. As you've brilliantly pointed out, the winner-take-all nature of the EC means that you only need a SMALL victory in the state to win ALL of their votes. By bringing up "popular vote victory" you are implicitly admitting that the popular vote is the fairest standard, yet ignoring that entirely for this debate! "He cites the example of the 1992 election to try to disprove my point" Because I did. You claimed that the DPV was flawed because someone could win even without the majority. I showed you not only that you ignored a portion of my argument, (the runoff) thus failing to refute my point, that you made an argument AGAINST your own system in doing so. "the senate, which gives small states disproportionate representation, governs the whole nation, and is elected state by state (sound familiar?) shouldn't be abolished" People elect senators in the states they represent. There's no need to elect the national leader state-by-state, especially when such a system disenfranchises voters in most of the states. SUMMARY: My opponent there's no problem with the House electing the president. Moreover, the EC means that only a few states decide the whole election. Vote DPV,1 vote = 1 vote