Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

I will first refute her case. C+1: The electoral college is flawed--> The system we have now does not follow the principles of a democracyMay I first point out we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. [1] Now my opponent states that in our system we have an equal say in who is repressing us. This is true under the EC (electoral college) What happens is at the republican convention (state wide) people vote on who they want to be the electors. Once chosen the person pledges to the candidate. [2] Now, this means when we vote for president we are not voting for the candidate, rather his elector.Then my opponent says it is possible that 49% may trump the 51%. She claims this is unjust. This is false, as it is just for the minority to win every once and a while. But what she leaves out is the largest states still have larger influence on elections. Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000, this year it will likely be PA. The EC is not direct majority rule, but studies show democrats and republicans usually get the same percentage of votes in big states as they do overall, john kerry got 48% in 2004, and he got 48% in ohio. As larger states are worth more with or without the EC the overall vote is fair as it either gives you the big states or you don't. [3] Basically saying your overall win/loss with or without the EC is going to be similar. So therefore it generally forces a majority. If you look at all the elections put together the majority of the winners had the majority of the EC and the popular vote. [4] This disproves your argument as the EC usually ends in a majority win.---> Most people do not support the systemThis argument is known as the bandwagon fallacy.The bandwagon fallacy mean appeal to the majority, more people like this therefore we should do it. [5] Note, POPULAR SUPPORT IS NEVER A GOOD REASON TO DO ANYTHING. This fallacy occurs when one argues to appeal to the majority. [6] Having this argument fits into this fallacy, and popular support is no reason to do X or Y. This argument is henceforth invalid. ---> People may not vote due to the ECMy opponent claims people may not vote because their vote might become worthless. May I point out that is false, as the vote is still counted in the overall vote when you are watching fox news in November and see obama gets 51% of the vote against romney. The vote is indeed counted in the popular vote, and voting is extremely important regardless. My opponents whole argument is in theory people may not vote under this system. If you look at the facts, the EC actually increases the voting power. As each vote is in each district and electors are proportioned accordingly, it makes each vote worth more on the elector. In a NV (national vote) System your vote is worthless as we have 200 million people voting. The EC makes votes worth more. [5] Also my opponent brings up the point about winner takes all. Although this is partially true, many states have a proportional voting system. This means if you win district C you get 1 elector, but he wins district A so he gets on elector. [7]C+2: The system fails to make the majority winThis argument as I have stated is false. The majority of the time the majority wins. the election in 2000 was a special case. Only in 3/54 elections has the electoral vote and the popular vote been different. [8] This disprove your case as the EC almost always shows a majority. And as I describe later is good for the election. C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans This is refuted by my st contention when I make it. I argue the EC helps minorities, a national vote would erode power for the smaller states. I will refute the 14th and 15th amendment now though. This is assuming the EC takes away peoples rights. Peoples rights are not taken away as in the EC each vote still counts, any voe could sway all of the electors. under the NV it would certainly break the 14th amendment as minority's and small states would not matter in the main elections. --My Case--C1: The EC increases minority statusIn small states under a NV system their votes will literally be USELESS. The NV system would mean the larger states have all the power, as the candidate would have to go to California, Texas, Florida, and the north east and bang! you won the election. This means the smaller states are neglected and would hold little power in the actual election. The electoral college actually gives smaller states influence on the elections. It actually means their vote is worth slightly more then someones vote in texas, as the EC makes it so a vote here in NM is worth more, but it gives our state potential to sway an election. Texas still is worth more EC wise, but the EC enhances minority status. [9]"the Electoral College actually enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the votes of even small minorities in a State may make the difference between winning all of that State's electoral votes or none of that State's electoral votes." [10]In a NV system the minority vote wouldn't matter as they are the minority. In the EC it matters as their vote may sway it from all of the electors or none of them. As stated it also helps the states with smaller population. [11] A NV system would not help EVERYONE as it would hurt small states and minorities. C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country The EC forces the winner to win the majority of the land mass to win. As the EC adds to the small states power (example Wyoming)"The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states." [12]As the small states with low populations are the majority of the country, and now the EC makes them worth something, it forces the candidates to win those states or lose. Under the NV system they only need to win large towns. "If presidents appeared to be solely regional candidates, it would tend to undermine the cohesiveness of the country. Given the current Electoral College, no person could become president without both the support of a substantial portion of the population and broad support over different regions of the country." [13]In order of population you see although the individual large states have more population, the majority of the country has low population. The whole Midwest and Alaska have the least population and the largest area. [14] The EC forces you to win these states in the mid west or else you will lose. As the EC forces you to do this it makes you win the majority of the votes (most of the time) as well as the larger land mass (usually). C3: The EC encourages a two party system A NV system would mean more people would run for president. The EC makes it so there is only 2 viable parties running (making it easier on us). I will be fast as I am low on room. [15]C4: Constitution We have an amendment making the EC exist. "The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system." [16]Now, we know the small states would never pass the bill, and 3/4 of the states need to support a change in the system to change the EC to an NV. As there would be too many small states against this action, the EC change would be impossible. Any attempt would be futile. [17]Conclusion: The EC has many benefits that should not be discarded, it helps minorities and small states, forces a majority usually and one must win most of the countries land mass, not just small concentrations of the US like with the NV, and it would be impossible to change the system as the small states would block the change. For these reasons, I urge a CON voteSources inside this link: http://www.debate.org...