The Electoral College Should be Abolished

This has been a thrilling and insightful debate, Con. My gratitude goes out for the arguments provided and hope that this will wrap up nicely and give readers a more informed examination of the EC.Disagreeing with the claim that I must prove every single argument my opponent provides wrong to win, I don't believe that voters must choose my opponent's argument over mine because they feel there was one flaw in it even if it is overall stronger than my opponents' arguments. Although I am challenging the status quo, I believe that rule is a bit over the top given how unfair of a disadvantage it would push on me. No such rule was stated in my opening round and I will not comply to it since it is not how debates work on this site regardless of whether the status quo is being challenged or not. It is up to the voters to decide, and if they believe one side was stronger than the other then they will so vote by the proper means.RebuttalsRe: Minority votes per states As a democracy, it is much more important that the people themselves are properly represented rather than the states are. As mentioned earlier, each state is different with boundaries that are bigger or smaller than others. If we define an election's results by state boundaries rather than individuals, then the people's individual liberties are being violated. In the PV, there would be no minority or majority votes based on borders, but each vote would count for itself, equal to every other vote in the whole country. With the EC, we have to make some peoples' votes count more or be "represented more" because of the states they are living in, but it is completely unnecessary to because we could have a much more simple system such as the PV.If we stopped disregarding the minority votes in the EC, then yes, it would be unfair to the majority votes in small states only if we kept the EC. In the PV, the concept of minority and majority votes would be completely wiped away, which would be more fair for everyone. Unfairness would not exist because state boundaries would not be considered. No one would be under or over-represented in the PV.It may not be possible to show how many more people would vote in the PV (since a PV has never been established), but it is a valid conclusion to make considering how overrun some peoples' votes are. If a voter knows that a solid state is not going to be affected by his or her single vote, then they are indeed discouraged from voting at all. What is the point of voting when your vote will have no effect whatsoever on the outcome of an election? In a PV however, everyone's vote will count equally towards the result regardless of who that voters' state neighbors are. In a solid state in the EC, someone's neighbors define one's vote, not the actual voter himself.It doesn't matter whether California is 34.6% red or 49.9% red; it's minority representation would not count at all. Only the vote that exceeds 50% counts. If every state in the Union including D.C. voted 49% for Candidate A and 51% for Candidate B (per state), then Candidate B would receive 538 electoral votes and Candidate would receive 0. This is in fact unfair representation and a violation of the concept of free democracy.Re: Unequal representationAgain, states do not need representation in an election, the people do. The state of Wyoming would not be represented in the PV but the people will. There is no reason to base elections off of states rather than the citizens since that would contradict individual liberty and would give more power to areas and boundaries, not people. The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all subsequent amendments pertain to or protect individual rights. Why is it that individual liberty seems to disappear when it comes to the EC?It is true that in the EC, Wyoming would have to have a disproportionate amount of representatives to actually have a voice in the election. Instead of receiving 0 votes, it receives 3 votes, which over-represents it. If Wyoming happened to have a civil war and split into East and West Wyoming, then each half would receive 3 votes, giving the citizens even more of a vote that counts toward the result of the election. The Constitution grants every state, no matter how few people live in it, at least 3 votes in the EC[1].For the EC to perfectly represent the popular vote, it would have to give an electoral vote for each vote cast. Easily we recognize that the PV does just this, but without the "electoral" in it.Re: President with minority voteThe fact that a minority represented president has been elected four times shows that the EC is unjust as it does not follow the popular vote that well. True, it may not have occurred that many times, but it could always occur again and shouldn't be disregarded simply because probability is low. The upcoming 2016 election has the potential to turn into another minority voted president, just as much as the 2020 one does and every one after. The PV would eliminate this once and for all, as the PV would perfectly represent what the people vote and want. Do we as Americans really want to keep such a flawed system where the possibility of a candidate with less than a quarter of national vote can get elected? To what extremes do we have to go just to protect "under-representation" of small states that could completely be avoided in a PV?Re: Third party candidatesEvery candidate deserves to be recorded in a national election, with each of their votes for them properly displayed. It doesn't matter if they win or not, since only one candidate wins, so for a third party candidate to not even be able to make the slightest mark on an election or leave behind the lowliest legacy is disheartening. As said before, runoff elections sometimes happen in the EC because of a third party candidate who was a bit more influential than normal. In this case, if the top two candidates are in a tight enough race, then sometimes no one will reach 50% and a separate election is scheduled for a latter date where the third party candidate is dismissed. Everyone deserves to be represented, but unfortunately not everyone is because of the EC that we have.With that, I conclude my arguments for this debate and hand the last round over Con. Thanks to Complicated_Mind for participating in this debate with me and may he have good luck in the voting. [Note: All but one of Con's sources from the last round led to the homepage instead of the actual source. If this problem could be addressed before the end of the debate that would be appreciated.]Source1. http://www.usconstitution.net...