The Natural Law Party should be the ruling party in America.

Thank you for numbering the points, I will try to do that for my next debate. 1. "This is simply untrue dear reader. If everybody on the Democratic side decided to stay home due to over-confidence that Republicans would do such a thing then the Republicans who came out and voted would win. " Clearly, the word "always" was simply meant as a hyperbole, I did not mean it to be taken literally. It is true that for what I said to be a true, there needs to be a consistent voting base that holds a clear majority for one candidate. In those cases, there is no real motivation to go out and vote. .. especially for young adults and people who have never voted before. With a popular election, every single vote matters and is weighted equally. The 4.9 million republican voters in California would have their votes counted, so I don't think that the people of the sparsely populated Wyoming will be at much of a disadvantage, especially if it remains a two party system. With the popular vote, republicans in California might become inspired and raise it to 6 million - that wouldn't matter with the electoral college. . http://vote.sos.ca.gov... Even if California has not been Democratic for more than the past 5 elections, a better indication of how a state is going to vote than it's history is the current polls. When polls show that there is a strong majority for one candidate, the incentive to vote becomes minimized with the electoral college. With a popular vote, there is always an incentive to vote because every vote is counted. 2) "Besides, my opponent ignores the fact that all parties tend to focus campaigning to the undecided portion of the country every election cycle. " True, but the electoral system makes it much easier for candidates to pander to undecided states, as opposed to undecided people throughout the nation. I don't know that I would consider the swing states to contain "a broad geographical range of areas", especially since politicians still tend to visit the cities in the swing states anyway simply because they can reach more people in the swing state by going to it's main city. I think it would be better if they were to pay attention to cities across the country, rather than just those in the swing states. Consider the swing state of Ohio or Florida, both of which have both cities and country land (And I would argue that values are less dependent on what state you live in and more on the urban or rural character of your hometown). Candidates would just pander to the people living in Miami or Cleveland (cities) because they're the most populated parts of the state, that is essentially what you are arguing. However, I'm not sure that argument holds water anyway, but if it did, it would still hold with the electoral college. The reason why this is no longer true (even if it was in the past), is because of technological advancements and the ability to broadcast over tv and internet. When they advertise to Ohio, I would imagine that they advertise to the whole state and not just the cities. This would imply that with a popular vote, they would advertise to the whole country, not just the cities or populated states as you suggest. "Which is the exact reason this was put in place in the first place. " Really? Are you more of an expert on this matter than Prof. Amar of Yale University? Readers should trust my initial assertion regarding the history of the electoral college as it is the only one that is backed up with a credible source. I remember being told in elementary school that the electoral college existed to make it more fair for farming states too; I'm not surprised they didn't tell us that it was put in place so that the south could have representation for their slaves and still deny them voting rights. 3) My opponent has agreed that the electoral college favors a two party system, and feels this to be beneficial. I disagree, as I feel that facilitating the entrance of a 3rd party would force politicians to be more honest because it would be easier for them to be replaced. While this may create political instability, this would only be the case if there was a strong 3rd party candidate. Political instability is synonymous with a dynamic political system that changes more rapidly to fit the will of the populous. 4) "Those 11 states my opponent talks about would be the 11 states that candidates focus on during the election and could quite possibly win the entire election with those 11 states victory in the popular vote. " It would be highly unlikely though, because they would have to win nearly 100% of the votes in those 11 states if they had no others. The fact is that large states like California may have clear majorities for one party, but there are still a substantial number of voters who go the other way. The popular vote would do a better job of forcing candidates to consider the whole country, because votes gained in any state are all equal. 5) Reports of voter disenfranchisement still exists today. I recall from the last election that voters in Alabama were complaining that they could not register to vote because they didn't have drivers licenses. In some areas, voting booths are limited and the lines are horrendous, greatly discouraging people from voting. If a state felt that having more voters would mean more consideration from the executive branch, they would take measures to ensure that everyone who wants to can vote. Right now, a state does not benefit in any way from having a higher voting turnout. 6) Sometimes when you're the only person doing something, it's because it's a bad idea. But you're correct that this is not a valid argument for the abolishment of the electoral college. 7, 8) It is you who have not shown how the electoral college benefits the country. I have shown the fallacy in your argument that candidates would only pander to populated states. You maintain that a 2 party system (supported by the electoral college) is more stable and therefore beneficial, while I think that stability of the status quo breeds corruption and dishonesty in government. I have shown that a popular vote would provide greater incentive for everyone to vote, and would encourage states to facilitate their registration and voting processes. Furthermore, candidates would not ignore voters in states that they feel they have already won or have no chance in, because all votes count.