The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.

Some parts of con's argument were confusing, such as when they referenced electronic voting with block chains would be better, and when they said "...more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt." I read the source, and I don't understand what this portion of their argument is referring to, and what they mean by saying anarchic and trusting people who are corrupt. When I mentioned that the electoral system prevents corruption, I was referencing that it allows for electors to choose what candidate they elect, which was intended by the founding fathers to prevent wide sweeping waves of corruption that would allow for corrupt politicians to exploit the system and gain office [1].Why do you think Hillary won the popular vote? Because she is a corrupt sociopath who manipulated the public, but we were saved from her wrath by the electoral college, that prevented her from winning the election [2][3]. The electoral college protected us from this corruption because it balances the effects of widespread manipulation. Hillary was able to manipulate people all across the country, but since she didn't manipulate all the people in specific states, she couldn't win the electoral vote. Her sociopathic tactics allowed her to convince many people, but the electoral system requires states to be influenced, not just the general. nationwide populace. Make sure to read my sources to better understand what I'm talking about, if it doesn't make sense to you.Again, I don't understand what block chains have to do with the electoral college. From what I saw, the method of obtaining the votes is what the block chain system con referenced pertains to. The electoral college itself has nothing to do with HOW the votes are counted, just the way that they are used for determining the president. This part of con's argument is irrelevant, and definitely doesn't pertain to this debate. Con stated that it is "more trustworthy" to use this "modern system". Again, they are making no sense, as this doesn't pertain to the topic, but con words it to sound as if the vote collecting system and block chains are relevant. My opponent states that the electoral system is unfair, because residents of certain states will have larger says than others, which I referenced in my own arguments. Con believes it is an infringement of democracy. However, the electoral college gives advantages to minorities who would otherwise be less useful to candidates. As I stated before, candidates will only visit urban states to gain votes, and not rural ones in a popular vote system. This shows a disregard and bias against these rural state votes, and gives all the power of the election to large states. This means that these states will be hotpots for lobbyists, propaganda, and supporters of candidates. The increased lobbying will allow for the companies in these states to have far higher chances of profit, as lobbying often leads to corporate profit [4]. With this in mind, the rural states, and lower population states in general, will never be visited and be devoid of presidential politics, which makes lobbying impossible. The larger states will not only have more political say, but gain valuable political activity that promotes profitable lobbying and campaigning, which is unfair to the smaller states. Only a few states in the nation would be benefiting, and the others would hardly be effected from this imbalance caused by the popular vote. How does this tie back to democracy? Well, the balancing of the states restores power to smaller states, which gives those regions their needed advantage. An individual in Wyoming may have more voting power than a Californian, but the state of Wyoming only gives a puny 3 electoral votes, compared to California's 55. And if it were a popular vote, Wyoming would still be even punier than California in terms of influences to the presidential election. Democracy doesn't just encompass the equality of the people, but the states too. Our country is composed of many different people, who should be represented as each one out of many, not just many [5]. We need states to have rights and be more balanced, rather than the federal government having all the power. The popular vote system basically is letting the go of the reins of the election. It leaves it in the hands of corrupt politicians (such as Hillary) and destroys the influence of smaller states. Only large states will participate, and they will benefit from campaigning and lobbying. The popular vote creates mass media chaos, and will make the elections far more corrupt and chaotic [5]. The electoral system may seem to violate democratic principals of equal vote weight, and I will concede that it does in some ways, but the benefits, balancing, and protection it provides to the elections out way this negative result of the electoral system. I did not say that the system is perfect, as no system can be perfect, but that it is at least far better than the popular system [5]. Thank you for participating in this debate, and I look forward to your closing round. Happy debating.P.S. Please review my sources, as they contain lots of information that backs my arguments. Sources : http://www.thegazette.com... [1]http://www.wnd.com... [2]https://pisoproject.wordpress.com... [3]https://hbr.org... [4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] Additional Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://pisoproject.wordpress.com...