In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished.

I will be refuting my opponent's points and making no excess claims 1:The Electoral College gives smaller states too much of a voice. My opponent claims that the Electoral College helps smaller states out by giving them a voice. However, the fact of the matter is their voices are too large. As I discussed in my second point, the smaller states are too powerful. In fact, it is theoretically possible to win 50.19% of the Electoral College, but only win 21.91% of the popular vote, because smaller states benefit so greatly. This is an incredibly disproportionate system, and one that needs to be solved in order for the United States to continue to call itself a democracy. 2: Single Transferable Voting, as opposed to First Past the Post, solves recounts If a recount is called, then obviously it was a close popular race. This means under a First Past The Post system, it would be hard to determine the winner. However, in Single Transferable Voting, recounts do not happen because races are no longer polarized into the two parties, forcing a recount. Instead, third party candidates have their members vote on their candidate, showing who they prefer out of the two main parties. Also, the idea of a close election can occur in the Electoral College. Within this system, since there is an even amount of electors, it is possible to have a tied race. There are provisions to deal with these circumstances, but to claim that the Electoral College cannot cause close races, is false. 3:Amending the Constitution before has occurred First, I would like to point out as the topic states 'should', the argument here is about our obligation, and not whether or not it would occur. However, this process to amending the Constitution would take the same amount of effort required to repeal Prohibition, which was also a part of the Constitution. Resources required would not be an issue, since 'should' and not 'will' is the word in the resolution. In the last statement, my opponent makes an argument that is vital to the round. They state twice since 1888, the popular vote and the Electoral College have disagreed. This is a large and severe problem in the election system. Yet, my opponent seems flippant about this point. Imagine if, by some strange quirk in the rules, there was a sport where the losing team could win. Would anyone still want that rule, or rather would the people solve the problem and make the system more fair for everyone. The issue is here, the presidency is much more important than a sports game. It can, in some instances, determine the course of history. Imagine how different the world would be if Al Gore was given the presidency. Regardless of whether or not his politics are the same as your own, it would be massively incorrect to state he would be the same president as George Bush. 4: The Electoral College is a Federal Law My opponent claims that the fact that State laws exist prove that there needs to be an Electoral College. Yet, my opponent misconstrues the Electoral College with a state-by-state popular vote. It is not the case. The Electoral College is not unjust because it separates the state votes, it is unjust because those states are not awarded proportionally. If there was a popular vote state by state, sovereignty of each state would still be kept. Federalism is not what opponents of the Electoral College disagree with, but the simple fact that the Electoral College does not hold one person to one vote. Instead, it allows people in smaller states to reign supreme over the people in the larger states. 5:This is in fact an argument for removing the Electoral College In cases such as the case my opponent brought up, the Electoral College took a race that could go either way and handily handed the presidency to a president who won more electors than he should. Another example could be in 2000, where George Bush lost the popular, but because he won more small states, he won the presidency. This is a clear example of an abuse of the Electoral College. A system as vital to America as voting should not have this much abuse surrounding the system. This is a system that needs to be abolished. 6:This is a Straw-man fallacy My opponent claims that removing the Electoral College is akin to dismantling one of the three branches of government. Although both of them come from similar thought process, the fact remains that the Electoral College is an ineffective and undemocratic system and does not delegitimize the Senate, which is a part of bicameralism as well as Federalism. Also, it is unwise to blindly follow any person, even the founder of a country. The fact that the forefathers never intended for people without property, non-white men, and women to vote shows that although they should be respected, they should not be blindly followed, especially when it comes to voting. 7:This is another logical fallacy My opponent claims that the Electoral College helped get an unpopular candidate into office, even though most people disliked him. Yet, the inverse is also true. If Jefferson Davis lost the popular, yet won the Electoral, then that would create more slavery. The fact that Lincoln was a good president is irrelevant, because another candidate, such as George Bush, was an example of a bad candidate becoming elected. Imperialistic ventures such as the Iraq war were only possible because of the Electoral College. Therefore, the case that it happened to elect the right president one time is luck of the draw. 8:No Evidence, and Undemocratic As stated, my opponent supplies no evidence that the Electoral College Rigs elections, so we can assume that it is incorrect. Also, this is an incredibly undemocratic way of looking at the system. If the argument that rigging elections is a bigger problem than essentially removing a person's vote, then that is a dangerously authoritarian way of looking at the Election. In short, that is the issue with the Electoral College. The issue is that the idea that not all votes matter in a state, or that some states should have their people count for more. These are issues that cannot be addressed by the con, because the Electoral College at a fundamental level is designed to tilt the scales in favor of smaller, more rural states. In Conclusion: Now that I have sufficiently shown my arguments outweigh his arguments, I now turn the stage over to the con and thank him for the excellent points he provided.