Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

This is the first really serious debate with a serious opponent I have had, and it was very fun to boot - I think my opponent's idea of offering S&G to who had the best CX is a good idea, considering the grammar was very even. I would like any potential voters to grant the S&G points to who had the best CX, per the mutual agreement of both sides. With formalities and mutual agreement out of the way, I will proceed into thethe final portion of the debate. I will not respond to my opponent's response to my CX, as that would violate mutually-agreed upon standards. Please do not regard my lack of response to them as ceding the argument - rather, judge it according to whose argument was better. I disagree on me ceding round 3 points - I believe CX is only to be used to correct factual inaccuracies or to clarify an earlier position on an argument. The rules of this debate clearly state that rebuttal of round 3 arguments - of which each of those points my opponent notes belongs to. I will respond to each of them here, as I am allowed to do under the terms of the debate. My opponent's text shall be in bold font, while mine shall be in unbolded font. Contention 5: The Electoral College decreases the quality of candidatesSince candidates are now competing against anyone, not just the other party, there are fewer differences between the views of candidates. Therefore, candidates work harder to outshine each other. With many choices, competition is increased. This increased competition along with harder-working candidates leads to more productive candidates and a more productive society. I agree that the quality of candidates is important, but I disagree that the electoral college is the root of the problem. One of the many reasons our political system has issues is the lack of participation in primaries. To give an example - my state, the great state of North Carolina, only 35% of registered voters participated in the 2012 primary as opposed to the 68% who voted in the general election. Thes numbers rank only two percentage points higher in 2008, when there was actually a competitive Democratic primary and a landslide vitcoty. [1] With such low turnout, a minority of voters can swing an election. If more people voted in primaries, the will of the people would be better represented. Contention 6: The Electoral College sends negative views of the U. S. overseasAmerica is a symbol of freedom and representation. Foreigners look to America as a free country where everyone's ideas are represented. Essentially, America is a symbol of paradise for some, but for others, it is lies. Our "representation" is nothing because of the corruption. The Electoral College is part of the reason that America receives negative stereotypes overseas. I would ask my opponent to prove this factually, but he cannot respond because he has had a closing argument so to do so would be unfair. Rather, I would ask how countries would view something that has gotten virtually every election 'right' in terms of popular vote would be the root of anti-Americanism. There are many other issues people have with us, but a lack of freedom isn't normally one of them. Contention 7: The Electoral College puts too much stress on campaigningThe Electoral College system in place now forces candidates to spend large portions of their terms campaigning for the next one. Lengthy campaign cycles are, unfortunately, a fact of American politics. I believe this is due more to term length than anything - for example, this issue is much worse in the House of Representatives, where there are only two-year terms. To give an example, Mia Love, a Republican who barely lost to Democrat Jim Matheson in the 2012 race for Utah's 4th congressional district, has already pledged to run again in 2014. [2] To put it even more simply, there are several states where the governor only has a two-year term. The President has it pretty good compared to them. With that out of the way, I will note the few issues my opponent did not respond directly to. These are mostly minor, and my opponent may have opposed the broader theme, but take it as you will:*America is fundamentally a nation of states. *The Electoral College can be de facto transitioned to a popular vote system and back, through means like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. *Elections in America are not nessecarily decided by majority vote (ie. 50% + 1 vote), but by plurality (ie. the candidate with the most votes wins). *The 'power states' of California, New York, Texas, and Florida are awarded a proportional amount of electoral votes when compared to population size. *The popular vote in the 1876 presidential election was swung due to rampant voter supression from the Democratic side. Now, to my closing statement:Ladies and gentlemen of DDO, this debate presented an important issue - the future of the Electoral College, the system by which the President of the United States is elected. My opponent took the affirmative side, arguing the Electoral College should be abolished. I took the contradictory side, arguing the Electoral College. My opponent took the burden of proof, meaning he has to prove that the Electoral College needs to be abolished. While he presented some compelling points, such as the possibility of a result contradictory to the popular vote, I believe my arguments have, at the very least, proven the case is not clear-cut. My argument rested on severald key points: that America is fundamentally a nation of states and the Electoral College acknowledges this, that it requires candidates to campaign nationwide and moderate their stances, that third parties can and do impact elections, and that it can be adapted to the will of the states (and the people of them). As the debate went on, I introduced more points - that the swing states represent the views of the average American far more effectively than urban voters in New York or ranchers in Texas, but also that those same voters are given an appropriate amount of power. I also noted that most elections in the US do not go by majority rule, but by plurality rule - in other words, less than a majority of voters can decide elections. With that in mind, I urge all voters to cast their vote with BoP in mind. My opponent has a steep burden of proof - one he willingly gave himself. Each side made good arguments, but if Pro failed to prove his case, the debate should go towards Con. Thank you all for you time. References:1. . http://www.ncsbe.gov...2. . http://www.standard.net...