Electoral College

*Before I start my argument here, I would like to point out a mistake I made when writing the rules for this debate. I said that for the third round, both sides will rebut what the other said in the third round. What I meant to say is that both sides will rebut what the other said in the second round. My mistake, and I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I would like to thank ClassicRobert for pointing this out to me. * Thank you to Pro for accepted my challenge. This round, I will state the two main flaws of the Electoral College and explain how they hurt the democratic process. I will also debunk a common counterargument for the Electoral College. Winner Takes All The first major flaw of the Electoral College is the system used to decide which candidate gets a state's electoral votes. The system, referred to as Winner Takes All, is used in every state except Maine and Nebraska. This system allows for a candidate to win 100% of the electoral vote with only the support of barely more than half the people of that state. For example, in the most recent election, Obama won the state of Florida with roughly only 50% of the popular vote. Romney carried 49.1% of the vote, and the remaining .9% went to various third parties. This means that 50% of the population didn't want Obama as President, yet he took 100% of the electoral votes that represent them. Another problem caused by Winner Takes All is that of states being entirely, or mostly, skipped by campaigns because they poll with the majority in that state. Since the Electoral College dishes out 100% of the votes to the candidate who gets the majority. So, Nebraska, who has a large Republican majority received 0 stops by either candidate in 2012. Some of this can be attributed to it not using Winner Takes All, scaring off the candidates, but that's no excuse for not one event from either side. Ohio, a swing state, received a grand total of 42 events from candidates in the same year. Lack of campaigning and the feeling of being overwhelmed by the majority leads to people being less likely to vote. Winning Office Without Popular vote The way the Electoral College gives out votes to each state makes it possible to win the electoral vote without the popular vote. In a worst case secerno, it is possible to win the election with only 22% of the popular vote. Don't believe me? Check this video, and skip to 4:18. . http://www.youtube.com... also recomend watching the whole video as it is very good. 3 people have won the electoral vote without winning the popular vote in U. S history. They are, in order: Rutherford B. Haynes, who won by one electoral vote, but lost the popular vote by 250,000 ballots. Benjermin Harrison won the electoral vote 233-168, but lost by 90,000 ballots. George Bush won 271-266, but lost the popular vote 540,000. That is a 5% failure ratio of the Electoral College to elect the person Americans wanted to be President. Counterargument The most common counterargument that I've heard used against the Electoral College is that it prevents candidates from staying in the big cities and ignoring the "little folk" who don't live in cities. However, this is mathematically impossible, as even if you take the top ten largest cities in the United States, you only have 7.9% of the total population of the U. S. This is not nearly enough to win the popular vote.