Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

This will be formatted in the public forum style. Round 1: Constructive (Case)Round 2: RebuttalRound 3: SummaryRound 4: Final Focus (Why have I won / what has this boiled down to).Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. We affirm this resolution. This debate is weighed upon the word “should,” indicating something which is morally better. According to the BBC, this means a recommendation that may be ignored in particular circumstances, but the full implications must be understood. My partner and I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution because the state winner-take-all system creates imbalance and direct popular vote would ensure equality in each and every vote. Contention 1: The state winner-take-all system creates imbalances in elections. Subpoint A: The state winner-take-all system ignores votes. According to Aleksandar Pekec of Duke University, “For example, the assignment of all 25 of Florida’s electoral votes depends on several hundred votes difference.” [1] This was the case in the 2000 election in Florida when Bush won the state by a 0.01% margin. But by the state winner-take-all system, all of Florida’s electoral votes went to Bush. The votes of nearly 3 million people were ignored because they were not the majority. If those minority votes had been tallied in a national popular vote count, they would have elected a different president. This is proof that the current state winner-take-all system does not accurately reflect the people’s opinions in counting electoral votes. Subpoint B: A close outcome is considerably less likely with direct popular vote. According to John R. Koza in Every Vote Equal, a close outcome is less likely with a single large pool than with the fifty-one separate smaller opportunities that currently exist. "In fact, no presidential election since the 19th century has been won by fewer than 100,000 votes on a nationwide basis." [2] In the 1876 election, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden earned a full 3% lead over Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in popular votes nationwide. Yet Hayes eventually won a mere one-vote lead in the Electoral College by winning several states by extremely small margins, including 889 votes in South Carolina and 922 votes in Florida. If the president had been chosen by popular votes alone, then a close outcome would have been avoided and Tilden would have won decisively. Decreasing the probability of a close outcome would greatly improve the morality of the voting system by electing a definitive winner, indicating that direct popular vote should replace the Electoral College. Contention 2: Direct popular vote would ensure equality in the power of each and every vote. Subpoint A: Not every vote is equal when the state popular vote outcomes are close under the Electoral College system. According to John R. Koza, “There are numerous examples of large disparities in the value of votes under the statewide winner-take-all system.” [3] For example, Al Gore and George W. Bush both won five electoral votes from New Mexico and Utah, respectively, but Bush won those five votes with a 312 thousand popular vote lead. Gore had only won a 365 popular vote lead. This means that each person from New Mexico carried 855 times the power of one from Utah, which is immoral. This is another reminder that the statewide winner-take-all system makes razor-thin margins much more likely and electoral fraud more rewarding, thus it should be replaced. Subpoint B: Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. In the current electoral system, the least populous states like Wyoming are over-represented because each state has a minimum 3 electoral votes. “Thus, in the Electoral College, a vote cast in a less populated state is worth three to four times as much as a vote cast in a highly populated state” according to John Mark Hansen of the Michigan Law Review. [4] With direct popular vote, however, a vote cast in a large metropolitan area would be no more or less powerful than a vote cast anywhere else. Every voter’s power would be equal. Thus, big cities such as New York cannot control the outcome of the national election. The impact of this? Candidates need to campaign not just in cities but also in rural areas and ALL parts of the country for a moral representation of the people’s will. In conclusion, the statewide winner-take-all system is the reason why voters are ignored in presidential campaigns and votes are unequally weighted. For these reasons, we urge you to affirm. Thank you.[1] http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu...[2] http://www.every-vote-equal.com...; (Section 9.2)[3] http://www.every-vote-equal.com...;(Section 1.2.3)[4] http://www.michiganlawreview.org...;Thank you and good luck!