Electoral College

My opponent has rebuked my argument of the Winner Takes all system under the belief that the US is 52 Territories brought under a single banner of the United States of America and each territory is meant to be treated as its own individual. Yet, this is not the case.As I will prove, this in fact is the case.When the original 13 colonies broke free of the British in the 18th century, they were, by all means, independent states but when the constitution was ratified, those states ceased to be independent and instead became a subdivision of the United States of America. This is true in that each state surrenders certain rights and privleges towards the nation as a whole. This, however, does not change the fact that they are individuals brought together -- United, but independent.Sure, states have a lot of independence compared to their equivalent in other countries, but they are still subordinate to the Federal Government.You play this point off like it hardly matters. States have incredibly more freedom than say, a Canadian Province. Federal Laws supersede state laws, states cannot legally succeed from the US, the states are legally subject to the final dictates of the Federal Government, and the US is not referred to not as These United States but instead The United States indication how the US is a singular body and not multiple states joined together. Federal Laws supersese state laws, correct. Federal Laws are meant to be kept at a minimum though. The current President of the US has made many comments in regard to turning power back to the states. States aren't as free as they should be, but that doesn't mean the principle doesn't stand. US states are supposed to be able to secede, but this was yet another right taken from the states as a result of the Union victory in the Civil War. The United States has a central government, so in that regard, yes, it is a single body. But just because something is A, does not mean it cannot also be B. It is a single body made up of 52 different areas.This makes the US a country and a country should represent the people to its best of its ability and the Electoral College does not allow that.You have in fact proven my point here. The founding fathers designed each state to be autonomous. This is why each state has its' own election, and why there is a winner take all system. The Electoral College clearly is designed to protect the autonomy of the states. The winner takes all system ignores the voices of millions of Americans and makes their votes almost meaningless which is incredibly unrepresentative and unfair. By this logic, any vote that does not compensate the losing party with their given vote, is unrepresentative and unfair. Just because the central government does not give the losing part 40% of the presidency when it loses, does not mean it is unrepresentative. Each state is meant to hold autonomous power, and thus has its own election. Allowing proportional electoral votes to be distributed has no real downside besides being slightly more complicated and allows for much better representation. I can think of a downside. By electing by means of popular vote, you are bringing in democracy which the founding fathers did everything in their power to avoid. Are you claiming to be wiser than the founders of the greatest country in the world? That is an extraordinary proposition. By removing the Electoral College, you are also removing a large piece of their autonomy -- something the founding fathers, again, did everything in their power to put into place.If the president was the leader of a group of group individual states who wish to join together, this wouldn't be a problem but as I have previously mentioned, the US is not that.Right here my opponent has conceeded that state voting is viable under the system that I have previously proven was intended for america. I would take this comment as a type of surrender.Candidates spend a vast majority of their time and campaign in these states and for the most part, ignore the rest of the country because this is the best way to win the election. Even though my opponent says otherwise, I have cited sources showing how politicians use almost all of their advertising budgets and hold almost all of their rallies in swings states. If swing states didn't exist, it would be more viable to gain support in states that consistently vote for the opposing party or ones one party as gaining more support would gain more votes making candidates more receptive to the entire population not just the ones in the swing state.My opponent has yet to explain to me why it is a bad thing for a candidate to focus his/her attention on a population that he could possible win or lose with. If California really felt bad that they didn't get enough attention, they wouldn't vote 70% liberal. Swing States change, because state interests change. There is no need for a candidate to try and coerce a population that already primarily supports him/her.I see it as a much higher probability for some corrupt politician to bribe or otherwise coerce Electors to vote him or her into office than for a dangerous demagogue to win the presidency. After all, it's must easier to convince a few hundred people to vote for you than it is an entire country. I, again, do not really have any opinion on faithless electors. That's not a matter I'm terribly interested in worrying about. You may argue it's a good thing or a bad thing. The thing I find interesting about it, however, is how the opposers to the Electoral College were the first to support faithless electors in this last campaign. CNN, TYT, and Buzzfeed, to name a few, all looked to the faithless electors saying "This is the good part of the Electoral College." Again, I have no opinion on the mattter really, but it definitely is interesting to see other opinions on it. I would like to thank my opponent for a wonderful debate. It was a pleasure to have this discussion, and I think we can both say we've walked away with something new to consider.