Electoral College

My opponent has rebuked my argument of the Winner Takes all system under the belief that the US is 52 Territories brought under a single banner of the United States of America and each territory is meant to be treated as its own individual. Yet, this is not the case. When the original 13 colonies broke free of the British in the 18th century, they were, by all means, independent states but when the constitution was ratified, those states ceased to be independent and instead became a subdivision of the United States of America. Sure, states have a lot of independence compared to their equivalent in other countries, but they are still subordinate to the Federal Government. Federal Laws supersede state laws, states cannot legally succeed from the US, the states are legally subject to the final dictates of the Federal Government, and the US is not referred to not as These United States but instead The United States indication how the US is a singular body and not multiple states joined together. This makes the US a country and a country should represent the people to its best of its ability and the Electoral College does not allow that. The winner takes all system ignores the voices of millions of Americans and makes their votes almost meaningless which is incredibly unrepresentative and unfair. I would also like the address my opponents election example. Yes, this is an example of a winner takes all system but it's something unavoidable in the democratic process. The power of the presidency cannot be shared effectively and makes splitting the power unpractical but this not the same as the Winner takes all system in the electoral college. Allowing proportional electoral votes to be distributed has no real downside besides being slightly more complicated and allows for much better representation. My previous arguments also apply to the rebuttal to my first point but I would like to address the state's voting example my opponent made. He pointed out that if every state was perfectly represented, a candidate can win with just over 25% of the popular votes. This is a valid issue that applies to state voting but at the same time shows the flaws of state voting. It allows presidents to be elected with a small minority of the popular vote. If the president was the leader of a group of group individual states who wish to join together, this wouldn't be a problem but as I have previously mentioned, the US is not that. Since the Electoral College is in a way a state voting system, this just shows another flaw in the system. Pro has stated that everything about my argument about the swing states is wrong. He is correct in the fact that states with close elections would get more attention even if swing states didn't exist but the swing states massively exacerbate this focus. Candidates spend a vast majority of their time and campaign in these states and for the most part, ignore the rest of the country because this is the best way to win the election. Even though my opponent says otherwise, I have cited sources showing how politicians use almost all of their advertising budgets and hold almost all of their rallies in swings states. If swing states didn't exist, it would be more viable to gain support in states that consistently vote for the opposing party or ones one party as gaining more support would gain more votes making candidates more receptive to the entire population not just the ones in the swing state. Finally Faithless Electors. My opponent believes that they should be able to vote against the people's wishes as a final safeguard against a dangerous man but I believe that this ability comes at too great of a cost. Although my opponent does believe in greater penalties to faithless voting, I believe they should not be able to do it all. I see it as a much higher probability for some corrupt politician to bribe or otherwise coerce Electors to vote him or her into office than for a dangerous demagogue to win the presidency. After all, it's must easier to convince a few hundred people to vote for you than it is an entire country.