The Electoral College should be abolished

I would like to begin by apologizing to my opponent. In this first two rounds, I was not able to able to spend as much time as I would have like on this debate. As a result, my points and rebuttals have seemed weak and vague up to this point. Secondly, 've found this debate kind of disapointing. I was hoping to discuss the merits of Electoral College. Instead, my opponent has just handed me the burden of proof and dismissed my sources. In fact, I get the impression he wouldn't have taken this debate if he would have had to have taken the burden of proof. ANYWAY. .. .. . My opponent's argument still comes down to the same points as before: 1. ) He claims that I cannot substaniate the claim that our government's leadership should generally reflect the will of the people 2. ) He claims that I have contradicted myself by calling the electoral college superfluous and then claiming that it should be abolished My opponent has also made a serious misconception concerning my argument. He believes that I am under the impression that "the U. S. government's first and foremost job is to reflect the will of the people. " I am not. I never stated that the U. S. government's "first and foremost" job was the will of the people. I only said that it was a bad thing when the will of the people was subverted in an election (there are times when it is appropriate to subvert the people's will, but not when choosing candidates for congress and the presidency). Now I will disprove my opponent's first claim. My opponent dismisses the sources I provided in round 2 on the grounds that he did not wish to read them. Sorry, I would have explained, but I didn't have time. Now I do. The two articles explain that popular sovereignty and consent of the governed are two principles upon which the United States is based. These two principles state that the authority of the government stems from the people. It is logical then, that the actions of government should generally reflect the people's will. See the sources I give in round 2 for proof. My opponents also claims that my sources don't count, because they aren't straight out of an official document. Well, the constitution specifies the election of representatives in the house (see Article I, Section 2) and Senators (see Amendment XVII). Why would the constitution specify for representatives to be elected by the people? The only reasoning behind that could be that people's will should be reflected to an extent in their government. I have another source: the quote and source used by my opponent. This quote explicity says "Republicanism is the best form of government". Republicanism is a form of democracy. In fact, it is the form of government I endorse in my opening. My opponent also references federalist no. 10 (which I have read). Federalist 10 states that: "[an advantage of a republic is] to refine and enlarge the public views. .. ". As you can see, Federalist 10 acknowledges that "public views" do have a place in government, elected officials simply "refine and enlarge" them. You see, when my opponent quotes the founders attacking democracy, he is quoting them attacking DIRECT democracy. The founders believed in a republic, as do I. And in a republic, the will of the people is taken into account. In spite of all of this, my opponent will still probably claim that the popular vote should not prevail because of 'dangerous majorities'. I have several points to refute this: 1. ) Dangerous majorities aren't as dangerous as the Founder believed. Otherwise, all hell would have broken loose with the passage of amendment XVII 2. ) There are many other measures in place in the United States to prevent alledgedly dangerous majorities, including: federalism, the separation of powers frequently resulting in divided government, an independent judidicial branch, a bicameral legislature, a Bill of Rights, etc. 3. ) My opponent asserts that "Rights > will of the people". Even if this happens to be true, the Electoral College does little to help the cause of Rights. Allowing the minority presidential candidate to subvert the will of the majority in presidential elections does practically nothing for the cause of rights. In fact, the Electoral College allowed George W. Bush to become president. This created a 'dangerous majority' by putting Congress and the President under control of the same party. Bush went on to use this majority to alledgely violate rights. Now for my opponent's second claim, that I contradicted myself. He claims that I contradicted myself by saying the Electoral College has no benefits, and then stating that it should be abolished. How are those statements contradictory? If something fails in its stated purpose and is capabale of creating negative consequences, why should we maintain it? He also claims that I contradicted myself by saying that the popular vote frequently prevails, but the E. C. sometimes prevents it from doing so. This is not contradictory. I mean that the popular vote prevails like 95% of the time, but the electoral college it foils it the 5% (those are just approxiamations). The statements don't contradict. My opponent continues to deny that the Electoral College inhibits elections. He obviously wasn't around for the 2000 election. Keeping the Electoral College is a recipe for 2000 all over again. Moreover, amending the constitution isn't very bureaucratic. It's only hard because people like my opponent oppose the idea, prompting many congressmen to also oppose the idea. My opponent finally made a point defending the E. C. : that small states would not be represented and would be ignored. Guess what? That's already happening! No presidential candidates actually cares for states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana (all small states). The states that get all the attention are big swing states like Ohio, Pensylvania, and Florida (all of which are highly populated and fairly urban). Need proof? Go to my source in round one and look at the picture of the U. S. with the handprints and the dollar signs. The picture shows which states that candidates spent their time and money in. As you can see, all the handprints and dollar signs are in states that are swing states, especially the large swing states. The link is here: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) #Arguments_against_the_Electoral_College I guess that's all that I have to say. Sorry about not spending time in rounds 1 and 2. Thanks to my opponent for taking this.