The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

This is vital to keeping the debate fair, as Pro has both first and last say. Please keep this debate fair toward both participants, even if I have the first and last say. With that, I will begin my rebuttals here. Rebuttals1. Plan lessens chance of losers winning, and is overall better than a direct vote. My opponent's argument is based off the fact that a direct vote would be better than a proportional electoral college. He concedes that my plan is betterr than the current system in regards to making losers lose. Using his surgery analogy against him, let's say that you have 2 choices. 1 choice has a 1% chance of death and will leave you with a headache for a couple days, the other option has 0% chance of death, but will leave you either paralyzed or will render you mute. Which one would you choose then? I think the choice is obvious. Obviously death is bad, but a 1% chance with just a headache is much better than a 0% chance, but living you permanently disabled and hurt. Choose the plan that lessens the chance of the loser winning, and is better for the country in general. My opponent's argument is void because a direct vote would be much worse than my plan in other aspects, and it would be a disaster for the USA.2. Small states require those extra votes to remain relevant in the electionMy opponents argument doesn't have any basis in a proportional electoral college. He cites events that happened in the past, but those are using the winner take all system. The reason why candidates didn't bother with the small states, as well as the bigger ones, is because most of the small states are solid red, which means campaigning there would be useless under the winner take all system. It's the same scenario with bigger states. The big states were also, for the most part, solid blue or red. Again, under the current system, it's a waste of time to go to those states because of the ratio of Democrats to Republicans. My opponent cites the 1 candidate visit to New Hampshire. The reason why New Hampshire was even visited at all was because it was a light swing state. Imagine if New Hampshire had 1 or 2 votes, do you think the candidates would care if they won or lost New Hampshire? Since New Hampshire has 4 votes [1], candidates actually care about tit. Imagine how many more states would get visits under a proportional system. Since the states would split their Electoral Votes under the proportional system, candidates would have a reason to visit smaller states more. In fact, my opponent conceded that my plan promotes more equal and fairer campaigning than the current system. This means that candidates would go and visit those states, because they have valuable Electoral Votes and, even if it's a solid red or blue state, can still win some of those electoral votes. My opponent claims it would be better if candidates were to just listen to the more highly populated areas. However, as I stated in my last argument, people in smaller states have different concerns and issues. If the candidates were to only visit highly populated areas, those smaller states and their peoples' problems would be ignored and never addressed. A candidate needs to take into account the entire nation's problems, from the big states to the small states. Small states also need to have their concerns addressed, and the current system as well as a direct vote system would let candidates ignore small states' concerns. Additionally, a proportional system would also make candidates visit large states too, as they can get votes from those larger states, regardless of whether or not the state is either solid or a swing state. Basically, my opponent's argument has no basis in a proportional electoral college. They only apply to a winner-take-all system.3, 5, 6, 7 were conceded4. The Electors are political insidersMy opponent argues that millions of ordinary people would make better decisions than 538 people. On the surface this argument makes sense. However, if you look deeper, it has no basis. My opponent makes it seem like the 538 Electors are just like the rest of the millions of people who live in America. But, those Electors are political insiders who know better than the populace. The process for electing Electors start with the state party leaders and members coming together and voting for electors. Then, during the election, the people cast their vote for which candidate they support the most. The candidate that wins the most votes in that state (in the winner take all system) makes the state send their party's electors to elect the president [2]. As we can see, these 538 electors are much more informed and qualified than the normal population, and can prevent a terrible candidate from coming into office. Additionally, under a proportional system, the electors can still defend us from terrible candidates, while still representing the people. Electors are much more qualified and have better judgement than the average American, since they are political insiders chosen by the political parties.8. Metropolitan areas lean 1 party and makes candidates ignore small states. My opponent is correct in saying that there's no way 1 candidate could win 100% all those metropolitan areas. However, just like my opponent says, metropolitan areas tend to be very liberal. This isn't fair for the conservatives who live in smaller states who need to have their voices heard. Again, small states deserve to have their issues and concerns addressed, a direct vote lets candidates ignore small states' problems. . http://www.outsidethebeltway.com...; />This is a map of the counties after the 2012 election. If you compare this map with the previous map showing the metropolitan areas you will see that most of the metropolitan areas are blue! This definitely undercuts republican voters in smaller states, as they need their issues addressed, but will get ignored under a direct vote. Additionally, they will never have a say in the election under a direct vote, since they don't have a lot of people. But just because they don't have a lot of people doesn't mean their concerns are less valid than the rest.9. The Senate still proves that America still values small statesEven if we passed the 17th amendment, it does not change the fact that the Senate is meant to give small states adequate say in the Congress. The Senate is necessary for the small states to get their voices heard and their issues pondered. We also imposed term limits on the President, this term limit argument does not pertain to the issue. The whole point of having the Senate is so the people in those small states have a say. Whether or not the senators represent the state or the people do not matter. What matters is that the Senate enables the people in the small states to have their issues addressed. The Civil War's purpose is unclear, and is debated between many historians. My opponent does not even give a source to support his claim.10. It would be much harder to abolish the Electoral CollegeAs stated above, in order to amend the constitution we would need to both gain 2/3 support from both houses of Congress, then get 3/4 of the states to support it. I doubt that the Conservative congress, let alone 2/3 of both houses, will let the amendment get through, considering that they just won the presidency this year by exploiting the electoral college. It's much harder to get congressmen AND states to agree on something in comparison to just getting the states to award their electoral votes differently. My opponent tries to say that 63% of Americans is enough to get the Congress and the States to amend the constitution if we "put our minds to it". This is just ridiculous in reality. Only 63% of the normal, everyday people won't be enough to get 3/4 of the states to support the idea of abolishing the electoral college, let alone Congress. ClosingIn conclusion, we should introduce a proportional system to replace the current winner take all system because of the following reasons:1. It makes the chance of losers winning abysmal2. It promotes fairer campaigning3. It makes party minorities and certain states count4. The electoral college protects us from terrible presidents, which a direct vote doesn't do.5. It represents the people much better than the current system6. It lets the small states have a say and get their issues concerns, unlike a direct vote.7. It's much easier to pass than abolishing the electoral college8. It encourages voters to voteAt the end of the day, you can say why a proportional Electoral College is much better than a winner take all system, and that it's much better than abolishing the electoral college. This is why I must ask you, judges, for your vote. Thanks to my opponent, Capitalistslave for an amazing debate. Also thanks to the readers for reading the whole debate. We now must trust the judges to make the right decision. Once again, thank you for a great debate, and may I wish you good luck on your future debates. Sources[1]: . http://www.270towin.com...[2]: . https://www.archives.gov...