Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

So I will now refute my opponent's case. C1: The EC increases minority status There are two things I would like to say about this contention. The first is that some votes of states matter more than others. The system excludes many voters from a meaningful role in presidential elections. If you live in New York or Texas, for example, it is generally a foregone conclusion which party will win your state's electoral votes, so your vote has less meaning " and it can feel especially meaningless if you vote on the losing side. On the other hand, if you live in Florida or Ohio, where the outcome is less clear, your vote has a greatly magnified importance. Voters in small states are favored because Electoral College votes are based on the number of senators and representatives a state has. Wyoming's roughly 500,000 people get three electoral votes. California, which has about 70 times Wyoming's population, gets only 55 electoral votes. (1) In Electoral College, some people's votes count more than others, so the candidates only have to focus on states (swing states) that will vote for them and has more value on votes. The second thing is when people lose, they lose hard. The state only casts its vote to the candidates who the majority of the state voted for. So in another words, the majority aren't heard. They are just flat out ignored. C2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country "The primary advantage is that the Electoral College insures that a president must have broad support over many regions of the country as opposed to popularity in a relatively few heavily-populated states. This isn't true as I have stated before, the candidates don't have to do this. They can just focus on swing states, and the states with the votes that are more of value. C3: The EC encourages a two party system This is actually bad because it means that other people who want to run can't so it is just discouraging people from getting as much as involvement in politics as they want. C4: Constitution This doesn't matter when the current voting system is obviously flawed. Sure America might not be a full democratic country, but in the case of Electoral College, trying to implement state rights do not work when trying to make the votes fair and equal. The definition of democracy is that people have equal say in the politics. Obviously when many people are being ignored,it is clearly out of the line of democracy. Rebuilding my own case: C+1: The electoral college is flawed --> The system we have now does not follow the principles of a democracy As I have said before, United States might be a constitutional republic, but the base line is democracy. The definition of democracy is people have an equal say in what goes on in the country. In the modern view, the president represents the people, but he also has to follow what people want. Also, I think you misinterpreted my point about the majority having infinitely louder voice than the minority. What I am trying to say is that the minority are being ignored. Not being considered less, but flat out ignored. In a direct popular voting system, everyone is considered. Their votes are not being ignored, but counted. This is fundamentally unfair.(2) ---> Most people do not support the system Yes, popular support is not always the best thing to follow. In this case, though, people's support matters. It is the people's decisions that chooses the president. This is not a politics case where people are deciding whether or not to go to war, this is how THEY want to vote for their president. ---> People may not vote due to the EC The problem with Electoral College is that some people's vote matters more. So wouldn't this lead to a situation where some states are not getting some campaign from all the candidates at all? If that was the case, then would people want to vote knowing that some other people in states with more votes are more important than them? C+2: The system fails to make the majority win this has happened, and can still happen, and when it does, the people are not going to be happy. With direct popular vote, you have to get the majority of the votes, so this does not happen. C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans In direct popular vote, this won't take away the minorities' rights as much as Electoral College does, because every vote counts. They DO NOT ignore the votes. With Electoral College, they probably ignore almost half of the population's votes which does actually go against their right of having a say. 1. New York Times, 11-19-2008, Flunking the Electoral College,ï¿½ National Popular Vote, http://www.nationalpopularvote.com... 2.(Democratic, Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, "A Greek-English Lexicon," at Perseus) In conclusion, the benefits of direct popular vote clearly outweighs the benefits of the Electoral College. Even though US is not a full democracy, it is still democratic. Sure state rights are important, but elections are about the people, not the states. The main flaw in Electoral College is that it ignores many people's voices, which is a very bad thing because it is out of the line from the definition of democracy.