The Electoral College Should be Abolished

Thanks, Pro. We do agree Pro has the bigger BOP, but by how much is where we disagree. I will now counter-rebut Pro's R3 rebuttals.1A. Representation and focus As I have stated before, common sense dictates that small states would be entirely overpowered and voiceless in a popular vote. Pro has failed to give viable reasons that such a result wouldn't occur. Pro uses the majority of this section to assert that small states would overpower big states in EC; however, my R3 rebuttals alone refute this. Only *three* places have a disproportionate amount of votes (District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming) as they all have populations below 700,000. Each representative represents, on average, rougly 700,000 people. This means if given an exact number of proportionate representatives, these three places will be completely buried under all the other states, and would therefore be voiceless.Again, this contradicts individual liberty. I urge to audience to bear in mind that there are only THREE places where disproportionate votes occur; but it is in the best interest of society. EVERYWHERE needs representation.Pro may claim a vote in a big state doesn't equal to a vote in a small state, but overall that is untrue. Regardless, my opponent's negative assertions, seemingly aimed at many small states, only applies to three places. As such, no justifiable reason has been given to completely disregard these three places; there would be no representation due to lack of population in PV, and there would be representation for those three places in EC."The fact that Rhode Island has one regional concern would be of much more proportion to California with its five thousand regional concerns." -Pro.This argument is completely irrational. The disproportionate issue that my opponent is referring to doesn't apply to Rhode Island; it has a population above 700,000 [1], therefore they recieve an exactly proportionate number of representatives. Considering the above statement, my opponent's following claim: "The fact that Rhode Island has one regional concern would be of much more proportion to California with its five thousand regional concerns," is completely false and should be disregarded as Rhode Island is represented proportionately. If DOC, Wyoming, and Vermont, on the contrary, all recieve no representation, they would be disregarded as the president and other important figures will be focusing only on the big states.My opponent has not properly refuted this.1B. Abolishing the SenateMy opponent fails to provide a viable reason why the PV method should not be used in the Senate, but should be used in the EC.Pro's argument on this is all opinionated and baseless. "The Senate can address each state's issues without needing to ask the state which candidate the majority of its citizens support." -Pro.Key question: why? Why can the Senate go without the PV method, while the presidential election HAS to have PV, rather than the current and more efficient status quo? My opponent's argument on this is weak, and doesn't warrant much response as I have already covered everything on this section.2. Moderation Here, my opponent starts by asserting swing states are the only states that matter, and are therefore the only places that candidates campaign. This is both false and fallacious. Candidates campaign in every state with the EC, because every state matters with the system. With PV in places, candidates would likely not give Wyoming the time of day. Further, my opponent relies on another fallacious argument for this section: with EC, democrats wouldn't visit solidly red states and vice versa. This premise is simply proving my point. As I explained in round three, most states are solidly blue or red regardless of what system is in place.Since my opponent has failed to refute that states will stay the same part regardless of the system, then my point stands. Additionally, since Pro has failed to defend otherwise, there is no justification given here to go through the struggles of changing the status quo as this part of the election will remain the same, as conceded by Pro.In this section of the debate, Pro claims candidates will moderate their policies no matter their location. However, the degree of moderation will be different. Candidates will have to appeal to independent voters in swing states; thus encouraging moderation. Even if slightly moderated, Texas will always lean red, and California will always lean blue. As such, swing states are different and vote from scratch. Not only do they represent every region from the US, but they provide NEUTRAL representation from each region, thus creating a fair election. Pro's assertion that in a PV candidates will try to appeal to all of America is false. As I have repeatedly asserted, they will try to appeal to states with high populations. Since most states are solidly blue, or solidly red, who will win in PV simply depends on if there are more democrats or republicans; with swing states holding so much weight in EC, neutrality wins, and a more thoughtful voting process is considered when electing. 3A. Recounting [Clear Winner]One of Pro's main arguments on recounting revolves around the rarity of the situation. This was part of my point. PV would fail to confront such a situation in the efficient way that EC confronts this problem. As such, the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy election had a .17% difference in the PV. (See source two in round two). Though all 68 million voters ballots were counted in one day, it showed such a closeness in how many votes there were per candidate that cries of fraud were called out as well as vote-stealing from both sides. In a direct election, it would be impossible to please the public in such an election; a .17% would simply be too close. People would be pissed off, and there would always be the lingering question of whether or not there was some type of fraud that cause a candidate to supposedly be .17% ahead of their opposition. Due to these problems, a system needs to be in place to prevent such an issue from occuring. The EC is fair for a plethora of reasons I have already stated in this debate, and should be utilized in such rare occasions. It is overall beneficial to the election process for its fairness and overall accuracy. Lastly, it helps settle such a dispute, and there is less conflict than if Kennedy were elected because he had 2/10ths of a percentage more votes.3B. Fraud [Clear Winner]Here Pro fails to grasp the basic point I was trying to make: I never denied such cases where a recount would be in order in PV were not too common. However, I was arguing in the case that there would be one, PV would be a hindrance while EC would be nothing but helpful. As stated above, it would take months and months of recounting the votes in order to please the public; as such, EC is the only right option in such a situation. This WOULD lead to fraud chances as there would be no decisive president to quite a time with the PV method given that the public would be pissed.Also, Pro fails to give viable reasons on why fraud is reduced with PV; clearly there would be an equal opportunity of fraud regardless of the system. As such, unless Pro gave legitimate sources to back up the EC encourages fraud, this premise should not be taken seriously. PV would give lots of chances for fraud in such cases; Pro fails to prove otherwise. He actually concedes, and only points out its rarity, which I never denied.Additionally, in the 1960 election, a few fraud votes COULD have made a difference considering the election was so close.4. EC avoids confusion Pro fails to properly confront either of my two main points here:1. >3 parties would make the overall view of the election too divided to please the people, as more than half would likely oppose the president. Having two main parties mitigates such confusion.2. >3 parties causes confusions in other countries.Sourcehttp://quickfacts.census.gov...