The Electoral College

1. "Minor" Reforms The reforms you state would be almost exactly identical with a popular vote besides a very minor boost to the popular vote winner by state for the senators. You realize this right? This is NOT a minor change to the current system. This is a major change. This means you're effectively against the Electoral College as it stands now. The audience can be the judge of this, But from my view it appears as if you've conceded every point but one, And that one point you're holding on to I've addressed and you did not rebut. It's going to be the only other thing I comment on. Your proposed system would be major reform, And only marginally different than popular vote. You are effectively con the current EC, Which is what this debate is about. 2. "The Candidates have to pay attention to the needs of the small states. " You've entirely missed the point that the candidates did not visit 25 out of the 50 states, And 96% of their time and money were spent in 12 states. None of the places they spent the majority of their time was a small state. Your point is invalid unless you can somehow prove that by not spending almost any money and not visiting any of these small states they're somehow prioritizing them over large states. It's an incredibly moot and deficient point. You have to concede this point. It is indefensible. Your argument is that occasionally states become swing states instead of solidly one party or another, And that is why they have to pay attention to small states? No. They will pay attention to swing states when they're swinging and ignore them when they aren't. This is, Again, Why only 2 'small' states, Depending on how you define small, Were visited even once or twice by the candidates in 2016. If your suggested major reform goes into effect, Which is essentially 83% or more of a popular vote system, Then of course I would have few problems with it. Of course it would solve the problems. That's exactly what we're debating here. The destruction of the current Electoral College. 3. Republic versus Direct Democracy Representative numbers are determined by population. Representatives themselves are elected by popular vote, But only per district. Why, If I argue that we should have one federal branch of checks and balances determined by overall popular vote, Is this a bad thing? Why are you appealing to tradition saying "We are a Republic, Therefore no system should be popular vote" while essentially suggesting major reform to the electoral college to practically make it a popular vote system? All you would have to do to become completely popular vote would be to get rid of the votes given to each state based on their senate numbers and it would be virtually indistinguishable from a popular vote system. Popular vote doesn't mean direct democracy. We aren't voting for policies. We are voting for a candidate who will go on to represent us. This is how it works in Republics. The people vote on representatives to make decisions, And the people hold them accountable when it comes time for reelection. The founding fathers may have had a fear of direct democracy, But popular vote for a presidential candidate is not direct democracy. It's an election of a representative. You have equated popular vote for a representative and direct democracy in your mind, When it is the exact opposite. In republics, Representatives can be elected with any number of systems and it is still a republic. The US government is more accurately described as a 'constitutional republic' or a 'representative democracy. ' To conclude, We have the House determined by districts in the state, Not even a democratic popular vote per se. Only the number of representatives USED TO BE determined by population, And is no longer. We have the Senate which evenly represents all states regardless of population. This protects the states. Why are we arguing that we need an additional layer of small state protection when we already have the Senate and when small states are almost universally ignored in our current one? How is this a defense of our current electoral college? To argue that some people's vote only gets to count for a fourth of another's and that is OK is absurd to the extreme. My guess would be that no founding father would defend it with the current HoR freeze in place. The fathers would probably have an aneurysm if they saw what their system has become. If we have a spectrum with Popular Vote on one side and our current Electoral college on another, Your suggestions are about 85% of the way to a popular vote. This cannot be considered minor changes. You've already accepted that the minorities in each state are discouraged from voting and that their numbers are counted against their candidate and that is something that needs to be changed. You've argued that the imbalanced of voting power per person 3. 6:1 is acceptable, Yet you also argue that it needs to be changed, Effectively having your cake and eating it too. You've accepted that 21% of the popular vote COULD determine the presidency, However unlikely, And that would be patently absurd. You've agreed that the HoR being frozen due to EC and large state power, Even though that is the whole reason it exists, Is not desirable. I'm sorry but it sounds like you're against the Electoral College already, Friend. If you accept the inevitable conclusion that the current EC doesn't protect small states, And that your suggested change is way closer to the popular vote system than the current EC, We are left with you having conceded the entire debate. I don't think that arguing for a system of EC that is vastly closer to popular vote than our current EC is by any means minor, And it is not by any means a "pro" electoral college position. We aren't debating what the EC could be. We're debating what the EC IS. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht