This house would abolish the Electoral College

I am rather disappointed that my opponent has dropped my arguments and instead opted to kritik the resolution (rule 3 under rules). The resolution states "This house would amend the United States Constitution to abolish the Electoral College." The only way that one can entirely abolish the EC is through Constitutional amendment. The NVPIC does not abolish the EC. Nevertheless, let's look at the NPVIC that con has proposed. Among the issues with this is the fact that it will only trigger once a majority (270) of the electoral college signs on to the agreement. The second issue that comes up is whether or not the NVPIC is even constitutional. It could violate the Interstate Clause in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 which reads:"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." [1]In arguing against the NPVIC, Hans A. von Spakovsky from the Heritage Foundation writes [2]:"Supporters of the NPV claim that because the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine how electors are chosen, the NPV is constitutional and requires no approval by Congress. Such claims, however, are specious. The NPV is unconstitutional because it would give a group of states with a majority of electoral votes “the power to overturn the explicit decision of the Framers against direct election. Since that power does not conform to the constitutional means of changing the original decisions of the framers, NPV could not be a legitimate innovation.”..."The very purpose of this clause was to prevent a handful of states from combining to overturn an essential part of the constitutional design. The plain text makes it clear that all such state compacts must be approved by Congress."Con cites the Presidential Election Clause in Article 2, but the NVICP can also potentially violate that clause as well. Norman Williams writes (3): "Although the text of the Clause seems to give states unlimited power to select the manner in which each state’s presidential electors are chosen, a close reading of U.S. history suggests the need and propriety of limiting the scope of state authority under the Clause. Not only did the framers of the Constitution expressly reject the idea of a direct, popular election for President, but also not one state either in the wake of ratification or at any time thereafter has ever sought to appoint its presidential electors on the basis of votes cast outside the state, as the National Popular Vote Compact requires." There are far more problems with the NPVC than constitutional issues. For one, the NPVIC would change the way we vote and change Presidential elections far more drastically than by abolition of the EC. Tara Ross from the National Review writes (4): With NPV in place, California still would have appointed 55 Democratic electors for Obama in 2012, because he won the popular vote nationwide. But in 2004 the pact would have required California to appoint 55 Republican electors for George W. Bush, even though John Kerry won 54 percent of the California vote, because Bush won the nationwide popular vote. Does anyone really think that California would tamely submit and appoint 55 Republican electors in such a situation? Are we really to believe that it would give its electors to Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz? Doubtful. Litigation would surely follow to determine whether California’s legislature could appoint Democratic electors after all. (The Constitution says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .”) The chaos that would follow is just one of the many unanticipated ramifications of NPV’s plan. ConclusionCon's attempt at krikiting the resolution leads to more trouble for con. As Williams concluded: "The only sole constitutional way in abolishing the EC is for an amendment to the constitution, not an interstate compact by a handful of states." Furthermore, the NPVIC would be far more chaotic than an amendment. It seems that an amendment to the constitution would be far more effective and far less disruptive than an interstate compact.I hereby urge a vote for pro! Sources1. http://www.heritage.org...2. Although the author here supports the EC, he argues quite convincingly about the unconstitutionality of the proposal. Retrieved 2 August 2016: http://www.heritage.org...;3. http://bit.ly...;4. http://www.nationalreview.com...;