The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned

Definitely have a pretty complete understanding of the electoral college. Unfortunately my opponent doesn't even bother addressing my main argument in this debate. The win ====== In the United States, under the electoral college a presidential candidate can focus on the top eleven states by population. In these top eleven states the candidate only needs to get a majority of votes over his opponent. This could be 51% of the votes or less in that state. That's all. A presidential candidate literally only has to focus on the top 11 states by population and maybe a few more to make sure he/she is safe in order to win an election. On the other hand, in the United States, under a popular vote a presidential candidate would have to attain 51% of the vote in the country. Even with a great presidential candidate, say one that could win 75% of the voter population in each state, that candidate would still have to focus on the top 17 states by population. But 75% in a state is rare to say the least, the average presidential candidate would have to advocate to far more than the 17 states in the 75% scenario. So what does this mean in real world terms? It means that under the electoral college a presidential candidate only has to, and only tries to appease the needs of the top states by population. A president can literally just focus on those 11. Yet in a popular vote system a presidential candidate would literally have to focus on many more states than this in order even have a chance of winning. This means the presidential candidate would have to focus on a greater variety of people as a voting base and make policies that represent those people. The bottom line is that a popular vote system for president would support a greater number of people, represent more, and have a smaller chances of leaving people without a voice. All of this analysis is in my very first contention from my last speech labeled "The small states cry". Yet my opponent literally does not contradict any part of this analysis. Thus not only since the argument is really solid but also because my opponent doesn't touch it at all I think this is going to be the number one voting issue in today's debate. But for the sake of things I'll dispel these other theories also. Three part state ========== My opponent argues that an electoral college makes your vote 1.5 times more powerful. This is actually my point. Let's use his example of the North, the South, and the Central. Each of these have a population of 1 million people. A presidential candidate only has to win 500,001 or greater than his opponent in two of these three states. So let's imagine Presidential candidate anonymous. Anonymous in this election only has to win two of three states, and only 50% of their vote at that. Thus presidential candidate can literally just advocate to those two states while completely ignoring the needs of the third state. In fact the votes could be like this: North: 500,001 votes for Anonymous Central: 500,001 votes for Anonymous South: 0 votes for Anonymous Note: This is 1,000,001 votes out of a possible 3,000,000. and Anonymous would still win. He could literally ignore everyone in the South state and still win. This is how I attain all of my story about minorities being unrepresented. In this system the president can simply ignore the needs of entire swaths of the population. On the other hand in a direct election the presidential candidate would have to attempt to advocate to much larger swaths of the population in order to gain his victory. Especially since it would be nearly impossible to get even 66% in states North and Central (considering this model is anything like the U.S). Additionally though my opponents analysis on everyone have 1.5 times the amount of vote is just flat out nonsensical. Imagine we all have one vote now. Under my opponents advocacy now we all have 1.5 votes... but that doesn't actually do anything. We all still have the exact same amount of votes as everyone else. Wyoming ====== 1. Yes, my opponent is right their votes would become worth less. 2. However, Wyoming isn't represented under the EC currently. A presidential candidate is not going to make his advocacy conform to that which would be desirable for Wyoming in the status quo. 3. Yet under the popular vote system the presidential candidate would literally be forced to expand his base and advocate to a greater population. Which means under the popular vote system Wyoming would have a great chance of being represented. They Won't change now! =============== My opponent once again argues that whether or not the states would vote for a popular vote system as opposed to the current EC is somehow relevant to this debate. I would agree with my opponent if the resolution said, "The Electoral College should be voted down by the states." However the resolution states that, "The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned". Even if it's true that the states won't get rid of it that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be sacked. For instance I should not eat hot lava. The fact that I would never eat lava doesn't change the fact that I should not eat hot lava. In much the same way the fact that the states would not remove the EC doesn't change the fact that they still should. My opponent also argues that it hasn't been changed because it's unfair. That's not true, rather it's just not in the interest any single state. It's in the interest of the people as a whole(especially minorities), and I think I give a great deal of analysis as to why this is the case. Minorities ======= This is where I believe my opponent is just flat out losing this debate. He argues that a minorities chance of winning electoral votes right now is so very slim but under a popular vote it'll just be smaller. 1. I deny this logic for a number of reasons. The first is simply an extension of my past analysis where I argue that minorities don't have enough votes now but if you include similar minorities from multiple states their is a heightened chance of a combined base that presidential candidate might actually target. 2. Secondarily though simply extend all of my analysis on how presidential candidates under the EC now only have to advocate to the top 11 states by population and can literally ignore giant swaths of the country (including minorities). 3. But third. Even if a judge bought everything my opponent says on how minorities will be unrepresented in a popular vote then the judge would still buy my opponents analysis when he says that the EC already has a small chance of representing minorities. Thus not much of impact and I think we can only really go up. Faithless Electors =========== I realize there are laws in place to stop faithless electors but that hasn't stopped faithless electors from happening. In fact looks to my opponents case, he offers an example from 2000. Additionally, it's true, faithless electors have not thrown an election yet. However that doesn't mean they couldn't in the future. This is a potential harm with the EC that the popular vote would never have. Thus on this issue, the popular vote will always be inherently better. My opponents summary =============== David090 argues that the states have their own governments and should be allowed to govern themselves. This is true but my point still stands. Those smaller states don't get advocated too or supported by the presidential candidates. Thus those states in our society just aren't represented, especially from the presidential standpoint. Furthermore he argues that majority rule isn't the best approach in some cases. I'd argue that the current EC lets 11 states rule. And I'd say that's a sore shot worse than the popular rule we could have. At least a majority of our country would have a voice in the future of our country. With that I thank all, especially my opponent! Have fu