Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

D1: Helps Minority and small states The basis of my opponents argument here lies on the bandwagon fallacy (we already touched on this) and this in turn means the majority may be bad. What Pro doesn't realize is the EC makes it more fair as a whole. In a NV system a few large states (texas, california, florida, NY, Ohio, PA, and NJ) Would totally control the elections. The EC does in fact make each individual vote worth slightly less, as my dads vote would be worth more then my uncles vote in TX, but if you look at the system overall the EC is MORE fair. So, it is true each individuals vote is worth less/more slightly, but it keeps the big states from controlling 100% of the elections. It acts as a counter balance. So individually one on one they get crushed, but as a whole they are still worth more. So it gives us a say in the election so a few small areas do not rule the election, and still gives them overall more of a say. Does this make sense? I don't know how well I worded this is why I ask. And then to debunk her main argument all I need to do is show the majority wins most of the time anyway. Further more if you look at the way the EC is designed it is made too make a majority almost every time. One must win 270 electors to have victory. [1] As this is the case, it forces a majority. As there are 435 members in the house, 100 senators, they add them together 535 electoral votes. As this is only very slightly weighted to small states, it is mainly fair. As it is fairly even (still slightly weighted) it forces a majority 99% of the time, exclude 2000. So is appeals to the majority much of the time anyway. D2: Adds to the cohesiveness of the country My opponent needs to look at an electoral map. If you see the map the Midwest has more votes overall then California. These small states are the ones that bring the republicans to win anything. The Midwest now garners much of the electoral votes forcing candidates to win some of that territory. [2] As the smaller states are powerful enough to sway an election the candidates now must WIN part of the Midwest to win the election, forcing them to have a wider appeal. D3: Two Party system My opponent claims this is bad as people cannot run. This is false, as 3rd party people can run. But the EC encourages a two party system. Now if you think of it it does not exclude anyone. People like ron paul still run in the election as a republican. It makes the people with crazy ideas not want to run, therefore benefits us all. But other people like in the green party or libertarian parties can still run for president and win if the run under the banner of an {R} or a {D}. So it makes it easier for us in a 2 party system and people can still run successfully if they run as the new candidate under a R/D. D4: Constitution My opponents argument here is if the voting system is flawed fix it! Well first as I have proven it is not flawed. Second we are not a democracy like you keep saying. I already proved we where a republic. A republic is a government ruled by states but elected by the people. [3] So please, this democracy concept out, lol. No but this is a reason to keep it. If there is NO hopes in changing the system because every small state will veto it is a good reason, this reform will never happen this argument henceforth is in-futile. Its never going to fully go away with the small states vetoes. And changing it is not what the founding fathers had in mind. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ C+1: Flaws ---> Were still not a democracy. In a republic the government decides policy. In a democracy the people do. [3, 4] These differences hinder the argument invalid as it cannot violate this. Also as I have stated the EC 99% of the time forces a majority. So all in all it does not even violate democracy if we where one. My opponent is claiming the EC ignores the minority. As I have stated it enhances minority votes and small states, and your rebuttal to that basically conceded this fact. In the EC everyone is considered, in the NV system small states are not considered, only the eastern seaboard. If anything the EC enhances voter status. ---> popular support My opponents argument is still false. Popular support is not a reason to change something and it falls under the bandwagon fallacy. As it breaks this fallacy it is invalid. ---> People do not vote As I have stated it creates a counter balance so the big states overall are more important, and the smaller states do not get crushed. The NV makes the system worse. Individually we all are worth the same now, but in the government the small states now have NO voice. Texas decides over NM now. The EC makes it more fair this way so as a whole Texas is worth more then NM but NM is now going to have a say. The EC gives everyone a say, a NV system basically gives ALL OF THE POWER to NY and TX and CA. This is more unfair then the flaws you are pointing out with the EC. A reformation to the EC would be more valuable then an NV which makes it worse. C+2: Majority My opponents argument is still looking upon the band wagon fallacy of appeal to the majority. The EC almost always represents the will of the people, and this is how the EC was constructed. My opponents argument is statistically very low unless there is a major third party, like in 2000 Ralph Nader sole the win from Al Gore. But statistically speaking her argument is very unlikely. The EC's winner take all makes it so you win the majority of the vote in those states, well if you win more states then your winning the popular vote by each state. Theoretically then you are going to get the majority of the vote most of the time. C+3: Direct popular vote maximizes liberties of all Americans My opponents argument is still interesting, as the EC increases minority freedoms. It helps all minorities have a major swing in an election. Under the NV system only the majority of the population counts, politicians would try to win the ethnic majority vote so they get more. The ethnic minorities would be worthless as they are a minority. The EC makes politicians win the minority vote to win. So small states and minorities are now crucial. As I have already proven, and you have not refuted, the EC helps minority voters. Conclusion: Direct popular vote is a system that is highly flawed and detrimental to the election system of the US. My opponents arguments as I have shown are flawed and fall under the bandwagon fallacy much of the time. I have refuted her arguments, as she has the BoP for being Pro AND changing the status quo. She has not fulfilled this burden therefore I urge a Con vote. http://www.debate.org...