The Electoral College Should be Abolished

I will now now return the favor in this round. As a sidenote, the last round will be counter-rebuttals (rebutting each other's rebuttals). I look forward to continued intellectual discourse. With the risk of sounding redundant, since I am arguing for the status quo and Pro is against the status quo, my opponent has to completely disprove *all* of my points to be 'wrong' for him to win. Failure to do so will result in a loss for Pro. If the conclusion from the voters is that PV (popular vote) and the EC (electoral college) are equally efficient, EC wins as it is already in place. Now onto rebuttals. I will respond paragraph-by-paragraph to my opponent's case. ====REBUTTALS==== Minority votes per state bears no weightI. The result would be the same either way. The majority, even if slight, gains additional point(s) to the winning candidate. Failure to disregard minority votes in big states (such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc. ), will be unfair to the majority votes in small states. The reason for this being that the minority votes in California, for example, would greatly overpower the majority votes in small states (e. g Wyoming). This would completely undermine sparsley populated states and therefore would make them virtually voiceless on *all* votes. In order for representation of rural states, this part of the EC needs to be in place. This point will be further elaborated on below. II. In this paragraph, my opponent argues that lots of people in non-swing states are discouraged from voting as their vote does not count. It is a baseless assertion to make such a major claim without backing it up with ANY data. It does not make a difference either way. Non-swing states are decisively blue or red, so they will vote for the same candidate regardless. My opponent has to *undeniably prove* that enough people would vote against the majority candidate in the PV method to change the result in the election for this argument to hold any relevance whatsoever. I can garauntee it will not as non-swing states are called solidly blue or solidly red for a reason. Changing the voting system will make no difference. An example of non-swing states voting the same either way: California, the most populated state in the country, is only 34.6% red [1] while multiple states have voted red (Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska, etc. ), in the past seven elections [2]. It can be determined reasonably by this that the result would stay the same no matter what in such states. III. Every vote counts in every state. If it weren't for people going out of their way to vote red in Texas, or blue in California, then the elections would be completely different. As such, it is important to vote no matter what state you are in. Pro has made another baseless assertion. Unequal population representationThe House of Representatives is lawfully set to be 435 [3]. To get the number of voters each representative serves we take a census once every decade. Once the census is taken, the powers population is divided by 435. By law, each state, no matter how unpopulated, needs at least a single representative in order to be voiced in the election. Without such a rule, minority states, such as Wyoming, would have no say in the election. They would be overpowered in a PV and would be completely voiceless. We cannot have this, as every state needs to be heard. Wyoming only has a population of 582,658, [4] but each member of the House represents, on average, about 700,000 [5] people. Wyoming has to be given a slightly disproportionate number of representatives in order to have ANY say in the election at all. If given an exactly proportionate amount of electoral voters (0) or abiding by PV rules, Wyoming, (and other unpopulated states) would be non-existent as far as the election and campaigners are concerned. This is unjust, as 582,658 people wouldn't be heard, which is contradicting individual liberty. This is also the case with every state with a population under 700,000. That means with PV (or an exact proportionate number of representatives) the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming would all be COMPLETELY disregarded as they all have populations below 700,000 [6]. Moreover, these are the only three places with a disproportionate amount of voters. My opponent will have to justify giving no representation to multiple states in order for this argument to hold any value. President with minority vote still gets inI. As stated above, every state needs representation, so PV is actually the one contradicting democracy as it leaves millions voiceless. Also, such occasions such occasions as the 2000 elections are a rarity, and only have happened four times in US history. With the exclusion of the 2000 election, the last time such an event happened was in 1888 [7]. Before that, it only happened twice, both more than a century ago. Further, no plans are without flaws such that I have shown PV has an equal amount or more, I have proven my point. Perhaps improving the EC itself will be in order, but not abolishing the entire system that has successfully led this country for centuries in exchange for a much more flawed system than an un-fixed EC. II. Con, with the help of a YouTube video, has asserted that it is possible to win the presidential election with only 21.91% of the population voting for you. This is actually very unlikely given that the EC almost always reflects the popular vote (40/44 times) [8]. Lastly, as explained above, small states need a *slightly* disproportionate number of votes to have ANY say. With PV they would have NO say. As such, PV would be much more harmful to the voting of minority states. Third party candidates get nothingSimilarly to above, the result would not be changed dramatically regardless. Regardless of the system in place, third party candidates will not recieve enough votes to make a significant difference in the election. The winning result, whether Pro wants to admit it or not, will be the democratic or republican candidate. As such, the EC mitigates pointless votes to third party candidates and makes it so all votes count toward the only two actual realistic choices. Additionally, technically third parties would be represented in EC as well, however they wouldn't recieve enough votes to be in the two most dominant parties, therefore this point is irrelevant as third parties are given a fair chance to make a difference in the election even with EC in place. This does not justify changing the status quo which has been in place in the United States for centuries. ====Conclusion==== I have achieved the following:-Proven my opponent's arguments wrong/irrelevant. -Shown how many of Pro's arguments can be turned around on the PV. -Demonstrated that many faults in the current EC system would be worsened further in a PV election. -Proven that completely terminating the status quo would be more harmful than beneficial. -No system has no flaws, however the PV has many more flaws that the EC. ====Sources====[1]: . http://www.nbcchicago.com......[2]: . http://thehill.com......[3]: . http://history.house.gov......;(go to the paragraph titled "current practice")[4]: . http://quickfacts.census.gov......[5]: . http://walberg.house.gov......;(under "how many people do congressman and senators represent? ")[6]: . http://www.infoplease.com......http://quickfacts.census.gov......[7]: . http://www.factcheck.org......[8]: . http://www.factcheck.org...