Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

I negate the resolution, Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Contention One: Ere on the side of caution-the electoral college works. American democracy has far outpaced any form of democracy in the history of the world. George Washington's peaceful transition to John Adams set a precedent that would be followed for years to come-that citizens of the United States would follow an orderly method of governing themselves. The electoral college has been the guiding hand in this incredibly successful system. As a panel of senators on the judiciary committee pointed out, "It is not sufficient for the partisans of direct election to argue that the electoral college is somehow defective. All mode of election are less than perfect, all provide certain benefits at the expense of certain other. " The Pro in today's debate has an extraordinary burden of proof-it must show that a system which has overwhelmingly worked for over 200 years ought to be thrown away in a blink of an eye. The stakes are immensely high. The United States is the leading power in the world, it cannot afford-the world cannot afford-for even one election of the executive to be called into question. As two professors noted in the Journal of Public Choice, the public debate rages on and "If, with the advantage of 200 or so years of data on how an institution operates, we cannot agree on what it does, we must express even greater skepticism about our ability to predict what some new institution for electing the president will do. " It is entirely noteworthy to uphold the electoral college because it is a system we know: a reliable and stable form of democracy. Contention Two: Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways. Proponents of a direct popular vote too often over simplify the question at hand. They fail to realize that, like any other system, direct popular vote will be vulnerable to numerous problems. One such problem is the increased threat of vote fraud. The electoral college is a series of self-sealing containers, so that each state does not influence the outcome of another. If fraud occurs, it is isolated. In a direct election, however, each vote is of premium importance to the national decision. As such, agents within the election will have a far greater decision to manipulate votes. Consider an election that stays in an almost complete deadlock throughout the day. As word travels, the urgency of West Coast votes becomes so great that the temptation to commit fraud by local officials is overwhelming. The election is illegitimate. The electoral college avoids this because even if one county of one state commits fraud, it will not be enough to impact the overall election. A far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts. As Professor Judith Best argues, "an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil. " This is the function now played by the Electoral College. To its defenders, it does so in two ways. On, it saves the nation "from the effects of an ambiguous outcome. " In this way, it confers the requisite legitimacy even in the face of close elections. And two, it also "protects the nation from the crisis of a disputed election. " In a direct popular vote, during a close election, candidates will be too tempted to challenge every result. Whereas before if you carry a state by 10% there is no reason to challenge under the electoral college, now a nationwide deadlock will ensure each state undergoes a recount. The judiciary committee once again explains, If one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. And in a little while, the whole electorate is involved. Contention Three: The electoral college creates a reasonable, moderate majority. The cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. This government ensures liberty and equality maintain an optimal balance for all citizens. As former senator James Eastland writes, "Because of winner-take-all(under the electoral system), a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each State; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. Since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same votes. Both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interest which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition. " This has so many great benefits, including reasonable polices that are widely applicable in nature. Under a direct popular vote, no such system would hold. Candidates must currently be able to get a majority of votes in a statewide election to obtain even a single electoral vote. Ideologically extreme candidates are discouraged from running because they know they cannot appeal to that broad of an electorate. Under direct popular vote, however, there is no need to win statewide majorities and therefore elections will become crowded with extreme candidates. This will further polarize politics as candidates make specific appeals to narrow voter interests. Then, the President will not be elected by a large body politic. He or she will be the voice of only a few.