Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. There are many reasons as to why a popular system is better than an electoral one, but due to space reasons, I shall limit myself to three contentions. Contention #1: The electoral vote system is flawed and less democratic than a popular election.The present system of electoral votes represents an indirect democracy. In this system, citizens cast ballots to select individuals who in turn then vote for a presidential candidate. Allowing individuals to directly select presidential candidates removes this “middle man” and treats each vote equally. The present system was created as blend of a populist and federalist style, allotting each state an amount of votes equal to their Representatives and Senators. Despite the fact that the Constitution allots the President only executive powers, the president is in practice also responsible for dictating their party’s policy. As such, the president’s role is extremely important, affecting each citizen of the United States in an equal manner. The present system allows for the marginalization of citizens, and was born out of the need to compromise with Southern States due to granting suffrage to slaves [1]. Even at its creation, some delegates supported the idea of a popular vote, recognizing it as more democratic. The unequal representation is further aggravated by the fact that most states (except Maine and Nebraska) follow a winner takes all mentality for the selection of electors. This system makes the popular vote essentially irrelevant as a president can be elected as president without capturing the popular vote. The most popular example is the United States Presidential Election of 2000, which saw Pr. G. W. Bush elected over Al Gore, despite the latter winning the popular vote. In fact, under the present system, the votes cast by the Electoral College usually differ significantly from those of the popular vote (e.g. Barack Obama received 68% of the electoral votes in the last election, but captured only 53% of the popular vote). The use of a winner takes all system creates other problems as well, which will be mentioned later. Finally, while measures exist in some states to punish faithless electors, it is still a potential problem that could be subject to abuse. Although there has only been one occasion where faithless electors have prevented the selection of an expected candidate (In the 1836 elections, where the expected candidate was elected anyway by the Senate [2]), the problem is still present, and could be abused in a time of crisis or controversy to circumvent the will of the People of the United States. Contention #2: The present system marginalizes what candidates perceive as “safe states” and gives disproportionate attention to “swing states”.This problem is birthed out of the winner takes all system that is used in nearly all states to select electors. States which tend to overwhelmingly vote for a particular candidate become less important for campaigning purposes, since minor swings in the vote will not cause a loss of electoral votes as long as the candidate retains plurality. This leads to candidates focusing their efforts on “swing states”, that is, states having a history of voting for either party. Candidates will disproportionately visit these states and spend more money on advertising in these states [3]. To garner votes in such states, issues important to these voters are given disproportionate attention. Contention #3: Direct popular vote has the support of most US Citizens.Multiple polls have been conducted on this issue, and a majority of those surveyed support changes to the electoral system [4]. Due to the President’s nature as a representative of American people and interests, both domestically and internationally, the opinions US Citizens hold on this issue is important. This notion has prompted attempts to change the system. One of the most notable occurred during Nixon’s Presidency in the form what is called The Bayh-Celler Amendment. The amendment made it to the Senate, but ultimately died there due to protests from Senators from southern and small states. Another ongoing attempt is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Under this agreement, the Electoral College will be retained, but electors of states who join the compact will cast ballots for the candidate who captures the popular vote. The NPVIC currently has about half of the electoral votes required achieve a majority in the Electoral College. If and when the NPVIC gains enough electoral votes to come into effect, the electoral system will find itself in need of review. Government ultimately represents the will of the people and history has shown that ultimately, if a significant majority commit to an idea, change can be effected. Citations[1] http://memory.loc.gov...[2] http://www.senate.gov...[3] http://archive.fairvote.org...[4] http://www.gallup.com...