The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

To clarify, the debate will be regarding the abolishment of the electoral college with instead the popular vote deciding the president, and I am con. Due to the way my opponent posed his points, I will make mine in a easier # format as my opponent addressed several different issues in one paragraph. 1. ) My opponent has stated that is very little incentive for voters in states that have a strong majority for one party to vote, since most state awards all of the electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state. My opponent uses the state of California and it's 55 electoral votes as a example. He says and I quote "California's 55 electoral votes will always go to the democratic candidate, and the voice of all others will be silenced. " This is simply untrue dear reader. If everybody on the Democratic side decided to stay home due to over-confidence that Republicans would do such a thing then the Republicans who came out and voted would win. Furthermore, how would popular vote change this? People living in such states would not change their minds on who they are voting for, and candidates would only to appeal to the most populous areas of the countries such as California, New York, or Texas. Meanwhile, states like Wyoming, Rhode Island, Maine, and Alaska get ignored due to their small numbers. In fact, candidates would visit such small populated states less because their vote actually matters less now in the entire scheme of things. Electoral College Votes are only determined by the population of each state. . http://www.cnn.com... Using my opponent's California Example: 11,996,101 people in California voted for just the Democratic and Republican candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) alone. This does not include third party candidates. Meanwhile, in the state of Wyoming; 241,135 people voted for just the Democratic and Republican candidates (Barack Obama and John McCain) alone. This does not include third party candidates. That is a 11,754,966 difference. No viable candidate would spend more then a day or two in Wyoming with such differences. In California's history, they have voted for a Republican 23 times and a Democrat 16 times. In fact, in the last ten elections; California has voted for a Republican 5 times and a Democrat 5 times. In fact, from 1952 through 1988, Republicans won every presidential election except the landslide loss of Barry Goldwater in 1964. . http://www.270towin.com... This rids the debate of my opponent myth that California will always go to the democratic candidate. 2. ) Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that all parties tend to focus campaigning to the undecided portion of the country every election cycle. This occurs in every democracy out there and is not a direct consequence of the electoral college system. Besides, the current system encourages campaigning and appealing to a broad geographical range of areas that contain different voters which will help lead the government to a better idea of what society needs and what it upholds rather then a few populated areas of the country. Case and Point: What people in California want and consider for values is most likely different then what people want and consider for values in Wyoming or Arkansas. However, with the popular vote; candidates will appeal to only states like New York, Texas, and California while ignoring the needs of the smaller states. Which is the exact reason this was put in place in the first place. Furthermore, the shift of the south from Democratic to Republican and the shift of California from Republican to Democrat in the past thirty years alone shows the system is not unchanging and that no state can be taken for granted. Barack Obama further proved in this in the election that such is true when he won what is considered "red" states and showed no state can be taken for granted. His wins in the "red" states helped swing the election into his favor. 3. ) My opponent argues that this system is unfair to 3rd party candidates and that the Electoral College is a two-party system. This is true, however it is good for the country. A great number of parties would, like in Italy, or the first round of voting in France lead to unstable parties and a weak government overall that is not united. This cannot happen in America with the role it plays in the rest of the world. For America to show it is not united and unstable would be a horrible thing. Furthermore, 3rd party candidates would still go nowhere under popular vote. . http://en.wikipedia.org... As this link demonstrates, the second closest 3rd party candidate would be Ralph Nader in the 2008 election with 736,804 votes OVERALL or only 0.56% of the vote. The numbers don't get better after that dear reader. So I ask my opponent, how will having the popular vote even help 3rd party candidates? My opponent claims that such a 3rd party altering the outcome of the election could be possible after several elections to build up support. The only reason Ross Perot even got as close as he did was because he was rich and spent his way to the top (and failed). The most famous 3rd party candidate in the last few elections is Ralph Nader who has been running for President since 1992 and has actually received less votes since 2000. What my opponent is proposing is merely a myth short of one of the main two parties currently collapsing in which a new 2nd party would take it's place. Which would still fit my definition of the electoral college working. 4. ) A candidate could possibly win with only 11 states but it is unlikely. However, is it more fair to take away the electoral college and go to the popular vote? Those 11 states my opponent talks about would be the 11 states that candidates focus on during the election and could quite possibly win the entire election with those 11 states victory in the popular vote. Never mind the voters in other states who would vote for the candidate. 5. ) The history of the electoral college should not be taken into account unless it affects the electoral college today. As slavery and the 3/5 of a person for population count no longer exists in the electoral college then it has no affect on the electoral vote and therefore makes my opponent's last point entirely null and void. 6. ) My opponent proposes following the rest of the world, why? Just because it is the popular choice in the rest of the world, doesn't make it the correct choice. 7. ) Nothing positive will come out of the abolishment of the electoral college. In fact, things may just get worse during the election season. Many people may not like the electoral college, but it is the best thing we've got. 8. ) My opponent has failed to prove how things when it comes to voting will so much better when the electoral college is abolished, nothing will change at the very least or things will in fact get worse as I already stated.