Electoral college

We agree NPV represents the will of the people better than EC. NPV always, and EC only sometimes, gives them what they want. The only questions left for debate are:1. whether elections exist to give the people what they want or what they need.2. whether NPV actually gives them what they need.I have argued at length that, ethically, elections exist to give the people what they want. Pro mistakenly thinks my argument is a fallacy.Me:"It is ethical to give people the leader they want. This is true whether or not their chosen leader leads ethically."Pro:"Con blindly trusts the people to elect the leader who will lead most ethically."Unfortunately, this is Pro's only semblance of refutation to my argument. Pro even expressed unwillingness to debate about whether democracy is ethical. I presented two reasons why it is ethical: (1) it fulfills the government's commitment under the social contract, and (2) you are already making that assumption simply by choosing an election system over having Congress elect the president or something. Pro's refusal to contradict these ideas, which really are the heart of the debate, should be counted as agreement with me. And R4 will be too late for Pro to start addressing these issues.That alone should persuade you to choose NPV. But even if you think the people do not inherently deserve the leader they want, EC does not actually give them a better leader.I will do my best to paraphrase Pro's argument, but I have to do some work to fill in the blanks:"Some citizens research options thoroughly and make careful decisions, but most only care about one issue and simply vote for the candidate who agrees with them on that issue. Electors are an elite group of the former type of people. After the citizens have elected a candidate, these electors make sure this candidate is not a complete fool. If he is, then they elect a different candidate."I have already shown two problems with this argument:1. A complete fool cannot get elected in the first place because of all the hoops one must go through to get his name on the ballot. Someone who has fooled the entire political system and the public will just as easily fool the few hundred people who were hired to vote.2. There is no reason to believe the people hired to vote actually are more qualified to make a decision than the general population. When EC was conceived, the citizens were actually supposed to vote for electors, not for the president. The electors would then have plenty of time to research and make a decision. But today, electors are simply people hired to vote for a predetermined option, rather than the distinguished experts they used to be. And there is no time between November and the inauguration to make a decision. The only substantive difference is that the sample size is smaller, and I think we all know why smaller samples are less reliable than larger samples.Plus, as Pro admits, EC punishes electors for doing what they think is right instead of what they are told to do, branding them "unfaithful electors". Therefore, EC is counterproductive.R4 will be too late for Pro to start to support the argument that EC is a well-designed system that actually makes better decisions than the general population.Furthermore, I ask you to hold both of us to the same standards of proof. The case I make for NPV is a valid argument with well-supported philosophical statements as premises and simple math as the logic. Pro has made a case for EC only by trying to cast doubt on my arguments and by vaguely hinting at the idea that EC can avert some kind of disaster.In debate lingo, it is not enough to say something like "EC is net beneficial because it has a chance to prevent disaster and NPV does not." As I argue at the start of R2, you are obligated to choose a system with a solid theoretical foundation, not just the system that seems at a superficial glance to have more pros than cons. I have presented a foundation for NPV and Pro has presented none for EC.