The electoral college ought to be abolished.

It is a pleasure debating with you. According to your argument the electoral colleges is a system unpopular with the American people. The evidence you had supporting this was "Per Gallup 16, only 47% of Americans support the electoral college system." However, the electoral colleges are swiftly gaining the public trust. Earlier only 35% of the people trusted the electoral college but now that number rose to 47%. http://news.gallup.com... This indicates that people are beginning to see the electoral colleges as the fair and just system it is. You stated that under the electoral college, some peoples votes are worth more than others. Let us examine the two states you used as examples in your argument. California has an estimated population of 39,535,653 people [https://www.census.gov...] and a total of 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has an estimated population of 579,315 people [https://www.census.gov...] and 3 elector votes. You argued that the votes in Wyoming are worth more than the votes in California under the electoral college. I wish to make two things clear: 1. California is still a state with an outstanding amount of electoral votes 2. Wyoming's voters, compared to those in California would be disregarded in a first past the post voting system on the national scale. For example, if all of Wyoming voted for democrats and half of California voted republican then the republican candidate will be in the lead and this will be unfair to those in Wyoming. So a popular vote system would still be unfair. You said that in those instances where the popular votes lost, a republican candidate was the victor and that this system possesses "bias against democrats" but their were many instances were democrats won the elections. Bias would mean that the system would not allow the democratic candidates to win at all. Barack Obama won the election against Mitt Romney when it came to both popular and electoral votes. As far as unfair goes this proves nothing. The electoral colleges allows both candidates an equal shot at winning the elections. Let us look at one of those instances. In the 2016 elections President Trump won the electoral votes by flipping states. Trump also had more states under his influence than Clinton did. https://www.cnbc.com... Voter fraud is much harder to commit with the electoral college system since it requires some very difficult steps. Steps which candidates wouldn't bother to waste time and money on. These steps are described in the following: "First, at the national level, the election needs to be close enough that altering the results in only one or two states would change the outcome. Second, the margins in those contested states must also be very close. Such elections are fairly rare. The election of 2000 was one such election: Florida could have changed the outcome, and the margin in that state was vanishingly small. A third criterion may be the hardest to meet. Assuming the election is close, dishonest actors must be able to predict which state (or states) will be close enough to influence the final results." [ http://dailysignal.com...] You said I had not specified how a democratic election is unfair and for this I am sorry. So let us assume that a candidate in a country where the popular votes decide the winner says that the teachers of that country ( who are paid an incredibly low salary) must have a pay cut of 50%. 2/3 of the population are pro-business and 1/3 pro-labor. The candidate wins the election and enacts the policy. It is fair by majority but unfair to minority and that is the system that you promote. If the will of the people is such that ( even though it is fulfilled by democratic means ) it negatively affects others, how can it be fair? An electoral colleges system takes into consideration the people by having politically experienced electors decide what is right or wrong for the country. Remember these electors are chosen by the people. You claim that democrats know they cannot win Texas which is why they keep their distance from the state. But the electors coming from Texas (who are republican) are voted in by the people. This can only happen if the people vote republican. So your argument that in a popular vote the democrats would win Texas has no foundation.