Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections.

Affirmative Case- November PF Topic Resolved: Direct Popular vote should replace the Electoral College for presidential elections. My partner and I affirm the resolution and offer 3 contentions finding direct popular vote to be the preferred method of presidential elections. Firstly, the electoral college distorts our democratic process. Second, the Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the many. Thirdly, the Electoral College forces candidates into battlefield states rather than to the nation. Contention One: The electoral college distorts our democratic process. Sub-point A:The electoral college creates an imbalance of voting power, contorting our elections. According to the American Enterprise Institute of Public Policy Research in December 22, 2002, quote "A vote in Wyoming is worth approximately 4 times as much as a vote in California. The electoral college is directly responsible for this imbalance in vote value. Simply stated, the electoral college produces an unfair scenario in favor of small states in every election. The Inter-Parliamentary Union reported in 2006 that a quote "free and fair election" is an imperative condition that a democracy must have as a foundation. Subpoint B: Distortion in our political process must be solved, and the Direct Popular vote is our solution. In keeping with democratic traditions, it is necessary to pursue the most free and fair elections, where simply living in Wyoming cannot be a deciding factor. When a vote in Wyoming is approximately 4 times as valuable as a vote in California, something must be done to combat this. The answer is the direct popular vote. Direct Popular vote repairs this distortion by creating an even playing field and placing every vote value at the same value: One. Contention Two: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few, rather than the public as a whole. The Electoral votes are taken not by the people, but by a set number of electors. The people vote for their candidate to essential give the elector the desired candidate of the state. However, the problem therein lies that the electors can decide to go against popular opinion in favor of his candidate. These are called "faithless electors" as they can rule faithlessly against the people. Robert Bennett of the Northwestern School of Law wrote in December of 2006, that "faithless electors" control too much power, and can arbitrarily and dramatically change the outcomes of an election at a whim. Professor William G. Ross of Stamford University wrote in regards to the Bush and Gore election of 2000, quote "in past elections, so-called "faithless electors" cast innocuously eccentric votes that provided a quaint reminder of one of the archaic curiosities of the presidential selection process". In other words, faithless electors have defected against the will of the people to serve their own interests. Subpoint A: The Direct Popular Vote fixes this dilemna. The direct popular vote removes the possibility of faithless electors to dramatically change the outcome of a presidential election. Professor James P. Pfiffner of George Mason University penned that the direct popular vote would solve this rare problem by placing the power of the election back into the hands of the people for which it was intended, rather than keeping it in the hands of the few. Contention Three: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation. The Electoral College is not a fair system by any means. It places far too much emphasis on individual states and their interests rather than the interests of the nation. In an article written by Taren Kauffman for the Duke Chronicle on December 1st, 2000, quote "Under the Electoral College system, candidates ignore states that are "safe" for either candidate. For example, I am from Indiana, which has a hefty 12 electoral votes, but is heavily Republican. Both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore ignored Indiana. If the president were selected by direct popular vote, the candidates would have had incentive to campaign in Indiana, because they could swayed the undecided voters who, under the Electoral College system, did not matter." The direct popular vote would fix this discrepancy by making voting power equal across the nation and allowing candidates to address the nation, not just a few states. In conclusion, because the Electoral College distorts democratic processes, and because the electoral college is subject to the whims of the few rather than the people, and because the Electoral College forces candidates to small states rather than the nation, and because the Direct popular vote fixes all 3 problems; I urge an affirmative ballot.