Electoral college

The Electoral College is a hybrid of direct democracy.No candidate would have won without the popular vote. the EC works on a confusing mix of politics and the public vote is a key part of that. Con doesn't seem to get that voting for Electors and Joe Schmoe is basically the same thing. "Unfaithful Electors" are rare, and some states have laws to deter them. Never was there a election was sidetracked from them.Con might say that there is a capacity of a election being sidetracked, and I would say he is correct. However, so can popular vote. So can a lot of elections can be sidetracked. A unfaithful elector can spell victory for one man and defeat for another in the same way a person could in popular vote.The EC ensures that the winner is fit for the job.Rarely will an Elector not vote anyone but who they are pledged to. They are diehards in their political party, and only not vote or whatever when making a point or a message. There should be no question that these electors who are voted in would vote anyone other then who they are pledged to. That being said, they are also there to ensure that the winner has at least fit for the job, lest the American people elect a total idiot.Now, I will lay out the frame work of what will be my rebuttals to Con. Here on out, Con will be in Bold.When the electoral college (EC) and the national popular vote (NPV) produce the same outcome, EC is an unnecessary complication in the process. When outcomes differ, NPV's outcome is right and EC's outcome is wrong. Either way, you have a reason to choose NPV and none to choose EC. Con asserts that EC would be wrong in their outcome, and NPV is right. Con doesn't say why this is, but I guess that comes later. Nothing much else here.You will find that NPV is justified by an uncontroversial principle and a coherent, mathematically valid argument, Personally, I think Con has much too trust in Democracy to the point of it being his argument. I find that silly that Con regards single issue voters or people who don't know basic facts about candidates is better then people who do. Again, Con asserts, but doesn't say why. EC is an unnecessary political compromise justified only by points that are fallacious individually and do not form a coherent argument collectively. And there is no way to derive EC from a solid theoretical foundation without doing incredible mental gymnastics. The EC is in no way flawless, but it is so that the next president is at least experienced in politics and I would argue it puts less focus on Urban areas and more or less other states. A smaller state would have a bigger impact under EC then in NPV. The purpose of any kind of election is to make a decision that represents the will of the voters. (To aggregate preferences, in more formal terms.) There is simply no other reason to have an election, except to deceive people by creating the illusion of democracy. I would think Con wouldn't agree with America electing Hitler Jr., so I would say it is to have a leader to lead. Sure, having the will of the people is heard, but that doesn't mean it is alright to elect an idiot, or Hitler Jr. Elections are there to elect someone trained enough to lead. There been quite a bit of faithless electors in the 1800s, but generally it is because they want to make a point or they made a typoTherefore, if NPV satisfies the criterion of majority rule when EC fails (over half of voters prefer A over B; NPV selects A over B; EC selects B over A), then you should choose NPV. Actually, there is no reason to believe that if NPV is right, then EC must be wrong. Con seems to think that NPV is infallible, which is just flat out wrong. The EC is there to ensure the right guy is elected, and Con doesn't seem to know that Electors almost never vote anyone other than Blah Blah. Voting NPV and the EC are basically the same thing, only that the EC ensure some quality. I'm starting to run out of space, so I will address whatever next round.