The Electoral College Should be Abolished

Responses to my opponent's arguments 1) My opponent argues that getting rid of the electoral college would create uncertainty in the presidential election process because the national popular vote would be much more likely than a dispute over the electoral college votes. I would have to challenge this claim on the grounds that if there is a dispute over electoral votes, it is usually because the results of an election in one state are so close that a recount is often necessary, as was the case in Florida in 2000 and North Carolina in 2008. If the national popular vote was close enough that a nationwide recount would be deemed necessary, then that would likely signal a problem with how the national popular vote was counted, as such, every vote from every precinct would have to be recounted due to the scale of a national popular vote system. This of course leads into another supporting argument my opponent made, which is that the current electoral college system creates separate elections in each state, allowing for easier vote counting. The problem with this argument is that the process of counting votes is handled by individual voting precincts, which number in the thousands nationwide, thus sharing the task of counting votes nationwide, thus allowing for errors in how votes are counted to be screened out. Unless this changes under a national popular vote, then such a supporting argument is invalid. 2) My opponent's second argument is that the electoral college requires presidential candidates to have nationwide appeal in order to win an election. This argument ignores the issue of partisanship that is common in American politics, where voters will often vote for a candidate who shares party membership with groups of voters. For example, here is a list of states that will most likely vote for a candidate from each major political party, sorted from the highest number of electoral votes, to the lowest. Democratic California: 55 New York: 29 Pennsylvania: 20 Illinois: 20 Michigan: 16 New Jersey: 14 Washington: 12 Massachusetts: 11 Maryland: 10 Minnesota: 10 Wisconsin: 10 Connecticut: 7 Oregon: 7 New Mexico: 5 Rhode Island: 4 Hawaii: 4 Maine: 4 Vermont: 3 Delaware: 3 District of Columbia: 3 Total Democratic: 247 Republican Texas: 38 Georgia: 16 Tennessee: 11 Arizona: 11 Indiana: 11 Missouri: 10 Alabama: 9 South Carolina: 9 Louisiana: 8 Kentucky: 8 Oklahoma: 7 Utah: 6 Arkansas: 6 Mississippi: 6 Kansas: 6 Nebraska: 5 West Virginia: 5 Idaho: 4 Alaska: 3 Montana: 3 North Dakota: 3 South Dakota: 3 Wyoming: 3 Total Republican: 191 Now, take notice of the states listed, these are states that presidential candidates from both respective parties could be expected to carry with very little if any effort, meaning that candidates often ignore these states in favor of more competitive states during presidential contests. Furthermore, notice the distinct advantage that the Democratic Party holds in the electoral college. As it currently stands, the democratic party would need to win just twenty-three electoral votes to win the presidential election, while the Republican would need to win seventy-nine. If the Democratic party won Florida, which has twenty-nine electoral votes, then that would be enough for them to win the presidency without carrying any other states. This setup means that a Democratic presidential candidate could focus all fundraising, campaign events, and organization on just Florida, while completely ignoring the rest of the country, negating the need for any other appeal nationwide. 3) My opponent's argument here is largely an appeal to consequences, therefore I do not need to address it. Sources: http://www.270towin.com... http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...