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

1. ) Clearly, the word "always" is taken literally as it would be. If what my opponent says is true, then why young adults and people who have never voted before vote now more then ever? Because who the candidates are influence people more then the system. It does not matter if it's popular vote or electoral vote; unpopular uninspiring candidates don't bring out the 18-25 demographic. Every single vote is weighted equally already, the electoral college is in place to protect all 50 states. The popular vote fails to do this. My opponent fails to realize that Wyoming be will at a disadvantage, to say otherwise would be ignorant of the numbers that I've posted. Again, the inspiring candidate argument takes hold here. Obama won in what is considered "red" states because he was inspiring enough to get both Democrats and Republicans to vote for him. The incentive to vote is always there, whether the people choose to use that right or not is up to them. 2. ) My opponent concedes to the point I've made. The electoral system makes it much easier for candidates to pander to the undecided states because there are enough people in those states for it to be undecided. Swing States are all over the U. S which contain a broad geographical range of areas. My opponent proves my point when he talks about the cities, nothing positive will change with the popular vote. In fact, the suburbs will be ignored for the cities instead. My opponent fails to consider that candidates visit cities in all states just about to campaign there. Candidates would pander to the people living in Miami, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Boston (where I'm from), and New York because more people are there. Why visit a small town when you can visit the nearest cities that has a hundred times the population? That is the sort of things that happen under a popular vote system. . http://www.history.com... As the history channel link shows: "It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing "senatorial" electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. " However, it's already been stated that the history of the electoral college does not matter unless it affects the electoral college today which it doesn't. My opponent's own link even states: "Of course, even an election system with tainted origins might be worth preserving for different reasons today. " In fact, my opponent seems to take many of his arguments from that link; some of which he has already conceded to me. 3. ) The entrance of a 3rd party or even a 4th party would not be beneficial. How it would force them to be more honest? People are going to vote for whom they agree with most when it comes to their views. 3rd party candidates most of the time either have unpopular views, their whole time of campaigning is to one issue such as Illegal Immigration, Medical Marijuana, and or don't have people who agree with their views the most. This is not the fault of the electoral college. With the Internet today, people can explore any party platforms they want and it's quite obvious that the Democrat and Republican parties are preferred by more then 98.6% of the majority. My opponent does not seem to care that this would create unneeded political instability, and the will of the populous at the moment is the Democrat and Republican parties are good enough. 4. ) My opponent seems to think his proposal is viable but mine isn't. California does not have clear majorities for one party as California has not always voted one way. If a candidate campaigns enough, the candidate could get nearly 100% of the votes. The popular vote would not do a better job of forcing candidates to consider the whole country, because nothing will change at the least or the smaller cities will become ignored for the larger ones. 5. ) The Voter Disenfranchisement that my opponent talks about is unrelated to the electoral college and would occur if not more so in a popular vote system. The flaws of the government when it comes to voting booths is not the fault of the electoral college. 6. ) My opponent concedes this point to me. 7, 8) My opponent you have failed to show how popular vote will bring out a great amount of voter turnout that you seem to propose will happen if implemented. I have shown how the electoral college benefits the country. If we take the "fallacy" in your argument then it merely applies to yours. The candidates would only pander to populated states. Stability of the status quo does not breed corruption and dishonesty, corrupt and dishonest candidates do. What you say is the electoral college's fault is merely the fault of the candidates themselves. Again, you have failed to show that popular vote would provide a greater incentive for everyone to vote. How would states be encouraged to facilitate their registration and voting processes; especially if according to you that they do nothing now and don't care whether people vote? Furthermore, candidates would ignore voters in states that are small under popular vote. 9. ) My opponent has failed to address the following: The Electoral College numbers are only assigned by the population of that state. Which is why California, Texas, and New York are higher then Alaska, Wyoming, and Maine. Since this is true, popular vote would have no positive difference on elections. Furthermore, my opponent has offered no evidence of any sort beside his theories of why popular vote would beneficial to society. 10. ) Many of the problems my opponent blames on the electoral college is invalid because it is not the electoral college's fault. It could be the state's fault, the parties fault, the candidates fault,etc. If the 3rd parties want to be big in America, they need to stop being static so their whole campaign isn't about one issue, need to stop having highly unfavorable views,etc. It is not the American people's fault that they choose not to vote with people they disagree with. It is their given right when they go to vote. 3rd party candidates only received 1.4% of the vote COMBINED in the last election. So it seems 98.6% of the nation has no problem with the candidates of the Democrat and Republican party. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Again, to blame all these things on the electoral college when it is not their fault is invalid and all points should be considered as such. 11. ) This debate does not have to prove whether the electoral college is perfect. My opponent seems to think so, but it isn't true. This debate is over the Abolishment of the Electoral College; not whether it's perfect. I merely have to prove that getting rid of it would be worse then keeping it. Which I have proven here today. My opponent once again has offered no evidence that a popular vote would bring about such change that he keeps talking about, blames the electoral college for things that isn't the electoral college's fault, keeps talking about the myth of the 3rd party being viable while the two main parties are which I have is proven isn't true, and has conceded several points to me. The popular vote system is imperfect and has many more flaws as I've talked about then the electoral college. Implementing it would be getting rid of the suburbs and small town America from the election. Small states like Wyoming, Maine, and Rhode Island with populations nowhere near New York, California, and Texas would no longer matter to candidates when they can simply campaign in some of the largest cities in the US.