Electoral college

In NPV, after you vote, your ballot is tallied with those of all other citizen voters. If over half of you prefer A over B, then A defeats B -- the definition of majority rule. In R2, I argue this is desirable. My argument has two main parts: (1) the outcome should reflect the will of the citizen voters; (2) majority rule is the best way to define what that is. Pro objects to #1 by saying that I trust democracy too much and that the purpose of the election is to choose the best leader -- if the citizens prefer "Hitler Jr", then the election system should prevent him from becoming president. My responses: a. My argument is not based on trust in democracy to put the best leader in power. Democracy is ethically right. To expand on my R1 argument: freedom is a human right; therefore, it is wrong to use governmental authority over people unless they consent somehow. Government derives legitimacy from the social contract: citizens consentingly surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for services. By voting for people to represent them, they express consent to be led by those leaders. Therefore, it is ethically wrong to design an election system for any purpose other than to make sure the people are represented by the person they consent to being represented by. b. It is bad design practice to design the system for any other purpose. Pro does not address the core of my argument on how to choose one system over another. You are not just making an ad hoc decision by weighing pros vs. cons. You are choosing one component of the system that is the government. A system cannot sanely be designed without modularity, i.e. without limiting the scope of each component. (Imagine trying to design a house if you worry about the kitchen sink when choosing the front door.) When choosing an election system, if you expand your focus from "what do the citizens want" to "what is best for the citizens", then a reasonable government could never be designed that way. c. Pro is afraid of "Hitler Jr" (a placeholder name for an incompetent or malevolent president), but candidates are already vetted to prevent that. If someone faked his way into politics or harbors some dark secret, then the expensive, laborious, heavily scrutinized process of political campaigning will quickly bring that to the surface. There are many gatekeepers, including political parties and the primaries. Furthermore, even if a bad president is elected, then he can be impeached. If all these measures fail to avert disaster, then there is not much EC can do*. To conclude those 3 points, the only valid consideration in choosing an election system is "what do the citizens want". Pro does not contradict #2. Majority rule is the best way to formalize "what do the voters want". NPV, by definition, satisfies the criterion of majority rule. Therefore, NPV's outcome is always right. Pro falsely says, several times, that this conclusion is a baseless assertion. Pro comes closest to refuting it by arguing (1) that electors are rarely unfaithful and (2) that EC gives small states a greater influence. 1. All my arguments assume electors are faithful (they vote for whom they are told to vote). Refer to my concrete example in R1. Pro's argument here undermines nothing I have said. 2. Pro presents no reasons why an individual in a low-population state deserves more influence than an individual in a high-population state. Maybe it is good if a candidate spends most time campaigning in urban areas. In conclusion, you are choosing the system that gives the citizens what they want; NPV always gives them what they want; EC sometimes does not. Therefore, choose NPV. * EC fails at vetting, anyway. It could only work if citizens voted for electors and gave them enough time to research and make a decision. Problem is, citizens vote for a presidential candidate in November, and then state governments hire electors. If the citizens voted for "Hitler Jr", then the EC only has about 2 months to make a different decision.