In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished.

-Introduction In this round I am going to rebut my opponent's initial arguments in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, and also refute my opponent's rebuttals to my case. - Rebuttals To My Opponent's Arguments 1. My opponent argues that if a candidate wins a state by a little over 50%, this means the other votes don't don't matter and the people might have well has stayed home. This logic is akin to saying that if I fire 3 bullets and only 1 hits and kills the target that the other 2 bullets might as well have stayed in the chamber. This logic fails because the more bullets I fire means the better chance of killing the target. Therefore, because the additional shots fired increased the chances of killing the target, they mattered, even though those bullets weren't the ones that actually caused the target to die. Thus, Pro's logic here does not succeed. 2. Pro claims that the Electoral College gives too much voting power to people of smaller states, but neglects the fact that this is done to counter the unfairness regarding states that that have a higher population than others. Since the increased voting power is justified in the name of the fairness I have mentioned, it cannot be used as a good reason to abolish the Electoral College. Pro says it's theoretically possible to win 50.19% of the Electoral College and only 21.19% of the popular vote, but forgets yet again if the winner was decided by popular vote then the election would be decided by a handful of large states meaning presidents would have no reason to sufficiently address concerns of smaller states to win elections (such as the water crisis in Flint Michigan). Since a president ignoring the vast majority of states would clearly more of a problem than smaller states having slightly more voting power, my opponent's arguments in this regard fall flat. Also, Pro says the Electoral College shouldn't be called a democracy; this is false. The Electoral College only fails to embody pure democracy, but it is still democratic none the less, and my opponent has failed to show in anyway this is not to be desired. 3. The argument about the law regarding electors not being able to vote for candidates from their home state fails for 2 reasons: (i) The law exists for a good reason, to prevent biased voting (ii) This isn't even practiced, as my opponent admits Thus, Pro's reasoning here can be disregarded. 4. My opponent has argued that the First Past the Post system is less democratic (which he hasn't proved), but hasn't argued that this in any way shape or form out weighs the benefits of keeping such a system (such as simplicity). Therefore, this line of argument from my opponent has not supported the resolution. 5. Pro argued that the First Past the Post systems are against third party candidates. This is irrelevant, as no third party candidate has ever won an election and probably won't ever. So, there is really no practical downside here. It would be like saying a certain action hurts the chances of me teleporting. It doesn't matter, as I have never teleported before and probably won't ever anyway (me teleporting is much more unlikely than a win from a third-party, but the analogy is sound regardless). 6. America has democratic aspects but it was never founded on principles of pure democracy so it really is futile to argue about how much the country sways away from democracy. Yes, the Electoral College allows for candidates who lose the popular vote to still win the election, but this isn't a "failure" as my opponent alludes to because if the popular vote was the most important thing to worry about then the election would be decided by a handful of large states. Thus, my opponent once again fails at supporting the resolution. 7. The concept of swing-states does have its issues (as Pro rightfully points out), it also has benefits as well (such as the fact that voters in toss up states have more incentive to pay attention to an election and make an educated vote than voters in states that are not swing-states). Because my opponent has not shown why the downsides outweigh the benefits, he has not supported the resolution with his line of reasoning. 8. The people in territories cannot vote in the Presidential election my opponent is correct. However, for the most part residents of the US territories don't pay federal income tax either and therefore should not be eligible to chose how they are represented at a federal level. Also, people living in the territories of the US are not considered US citizens, but US nationals. - Refuting My Opponent's Rebuttals 1. Part 2 of the previous section in this round addresses this rebuttal. 2. My opponent claims that a Single Transferable Voting solves the problem of the delay caused by recounts, but it actually creates a more of a delay because of the complexity of the voting calculations involved. The ends of implementing this system do not justify the means. Thus, this rebuttal from Pro fails. 3. We only "should" amend this aspect of the constitution if the resources and time required are worth it, which they aren't because as I have argued the Electoral College is a better system. With prohibition it was different because because the ends justified the means; humans should be able to chose what substances they can put in their body. This false comparison from Pro is not a sufficient rebuttal. 4. My opponent has not rebutted the fact that abolishing the Electoral College is unsound philosophically, and I have not confused the Electoral College with a state-by-state popular vote. Pro merely restates his position that smaller states have an advantage over larger ones which is false. It puts them on the same level because larger states have a higher population which, if the winner was decided by popular vote, would mean larger states would decide elections and smaller states would get left in the dust. 5. Having an obvious victor does not equate to electoral abuse but electoral efficiency. My opponent begs the question throughout the debate by assuming that victory by popular vote is better in order to claim that anything that goes against it is a "failure". This is circular reasoning. 6. I never committed a straw-man fallacy, I just pointed out that if Pro is to be consistent with this logic then there are undesirable consequences. Also, what I mentioned with regards to what the forefathers wanted was with regards to central parts of the Constitution, so his remarks about how the forefathers intended terrible things like slavery are moot points. 7. Pro's rebuttal to this is sound, actually, I will concede this point. This, however, is not enough to tip the scales in his favor. 8. Pro engages in a straw-man. I ever said that the Electoral College rigs elections, just that the lack of the Electoral College provides more incentive to rig elections. Pro ignored my reasoning for this. - Conclusion Pro consistently argued that the Electoral College is less democratic than the alternatives. While this is correct it is irrelevant as the US was never meant to be a pure democracy (just meant to have democratic aspects), and it has not been argued sufficiently that a pure democracy is to even be desired; it is just erroneously assumed by Pro. While I commend Pro for having much knowledge on the subject his actual case is lackluster at best I'm afraid. My opponent's case was dismantled with relative ease, while only one of his rebuttals to my case was sound (which still leaves my other reasons for keeping the Electoral College unscathed). Therefore, it is without a doubt the case that the resolution has been negated.