The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

I will first defend my arguments, then attack my opponent's. Con starts by saying that voters actually were educated when the EC was created. This is untrue because they being "white, male, adult property-owners" does not mean that they know what a candidate is running for. The fact of the matter is that it was that information traveled slowly, and even then not everyone wanted to hear it. Con then goes on to say that voting wasn"t even important back then, but that has no impact in this debate. The number of states that had a popular vote in 1788 has no effect on whether or not we should have an EC now. Con"s next refutation says that my argument of people votes not counting applies to any election. This is not true. In the congress elections that Con references, congressmen win their seats by the number of popular votes they win, so even if your candidate doesn"t win, your vote still counted. In the presidential election, on the other hand, the president wins by getting enough electoral votes. This means that if your state votes for a different candidate than you do, then your vote does not effect who wins. Con also says that I only have one good example of when the popular vote was better than the EC, but Con has no example of when the EC was better than the popular vote. The main idea of my argument here is that the EC is disproportionate to the popular vote. Because we live in a democracy, there is no reason why the election of our president should not follow the voice of the people. Unfortunately, the EC can vary from that voice. So unless Con can show why we shouldn"t follow the voice of the people in our presidential election, then I should win this debate. Now, onto my opponent"s arguments. Con"s first argument talks about how the EC was the founders vision for this country. This is not a good enough reason to keep the EC. The founders also permitted things like slavery and keeping women from voting, but those were clearly wrong. The fact that is has been used in the past is a faulty reason and should be disregarded. Next, Con talks about the 2000 election, which actually furthers my case. In this election, the EC went against the voice of the people, causing a large controversy. Like I said before, unless Con can show why it is OK to go against the voice of the people, this debate goes to me. After that Con makes a point about how the EC "supports and prevents third party runs". This seems like a contradiction to me so could you explain that a little more next round? Anyway, I do agree that third parties are good and do bring up important issues, but Con gives no explanation of why the EC helps third parties. Unless Con can show how the EC is better than the public vote here, then this point falls. In the next point, Con has the same problem. He points out an important issue, like the death of a candidate, but gives no reason why the EC is better than popular vote. Until he proves that EC us better here, this point falls as well. Con"s last point talks about how difficult it would be to switch over to a popular election. This is a very weak point though because it does not show that the EC is better. It would not be very hard to convert to a popular election because the popular vote is already counted, we just need to choose the president on that instead of on EC votes. Also, if we opposed everything that would be difficult to get through congress, we would never get anywhere and we would still have slaves, no women"s suffrage, and very few laws. I am winning this debate because I have show how a popular vote would be better through a situation like the 2000 election, but Con has no arguments as to why the EC is better.