The Electoral College Should Be Abandoned

While I appreciate my opponent's research on the population of each state, my position still stands. I can only conclude that those who disagree with the Electoral College do so because they simply just don't understand it. Almost like it's too complicated or something, and that people would prefer the nationwide popular vote simply because more people will "get it." >>>>>>>>>>> To in an effort to simplify things here is an example of a Divided Election (EC) vs. a Direct Election (Nationwide Vote) I found on the internet: Source: http://www.smm.org... Let's assume the United States was divided into three States: North, Central and South. Each state has one million voters. The nation has two major political parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. How much of a voice do you have in a nation-wide election? It depends on whether the election is direct or divided. In a direct election, it's easy to calculate the power of your voice. You have one vote. There are three million total voters. Thus, your influence is 1 in 3,000,000. In a divided election, it's a little bit trickier. Your vote helps your candidate carry your state. But in order for a candidate to win, they need to carry two of the three States. You need another state to join you. Let's assume you support the Democratic candidate. Your influence in your home state is 1 in 1,000,000—there are 1,000,000 voters, and you are one of them. If the Democratic candidate carries a second state, your influence there is 0 in 1,000,000—that state also has 1 million voters, but you aren't one of them. So, your influence in the two States the Democrat needs to win is 1 in 2,000,000. In other words, your vote is 50% more powerful in the divided election than in a direct election. Each vote cast in this system has the same power as 1.5 votes in the direct system. The same holds true for every voter in the country. The divided system has made the entire citizenry 1.5 times more powerful. How can it be that everyone gets stronger and no one gets weaker? It has to do with the minimum number of votes a candidate needs to win. • In a direct election, the candidate need one more than half of the total votes cast—in this case, that's 1,500,001. • In a divided election, they need one more than half of the votes in only part of the nation. In our example, that's 500,001 in each of two States, or 1,000,002 total—a smaller number. In each case, you as a citizen get one vote. Your vote moves your candidate one step closer to victory. But in a divided election that journey, though more complicated, ultimately takes a lot fewer steps. Fewer votes are needed to win, so each vote takes on more importance. OPPONENT: Considering that they (Wyoming citizens), don't have a voice now and are not represented what-so-ever I'd argue that their citizens under a nationwide popular vote would have just as much say as every other citizen. That's the Whole Point! The goal of the EC is to give the individual votes in Wyoming MORE power and MORE say than other citizens to help compensate for their smaller numbers. If you go to a nationwide popular vote you take that away and make their votes equivalent to the rest of the country. >>>>>>>>>>> OPPONENT: "One should not be given 3x the vote simply because they were born in a different part of the country. We're basically saying that one persons say in how this country is run is less than others." No one is saying that people in the smaller States have more say. The amount of say they have is being elevated up to the amount of say that people in larger States have. >>>>>>>>>>> OPPONENT: " Abolishing the amendment wouldn't happen because the constitution requires a 3/4 vote to change and the smaller States wouldn't want to change it. 1. First I'd argue that they would want to change it because it's actually advantageous to them. 2. But more importantly this point just doesn't matter. The resolution asks whether we SHOULD change it. Not whether we COULD change it. Thus my only burden is to say that we should, whether we could has nothing to do with this topic." This is irrelevant and my opponent completely missed the point. Why after 233 years has it not been changed if it's so unfair? The reason it hasn't been changed is because of the extra power it gives to the smaller States and they'll never agree to change it. I encourage my opponent to write letters to the Wyoming State Legislature asking for abandonment of the EC and let me know what response he gets. >>>>>>>>>>> OPPONENT: " Minorities are called minorities because they don't have a large population. This is problematic in the Electoral College because the lesser votes of a state simply go away and the entire state's electoral vote goes to whoever won the popular vote in that state." This is a crucial phalacy regarding the EC. A vote for the losing candidate is not a wasted vote. It's simply a vote for the losing candidate. OPPONENT: "Minorities within States have extremely small chances of winning actual electoral votes by themselves and thereby their votes end up counting for nothing." So you're in favor of stacking the minority's interests up against the entire nation when you acknowledge they're already underrepresented in their own state? >>>>>>>>>>> In regard to Faithless Electors the Supreme Court has already addressed this issue in Ray v. Blair (1952) where the court ruled in favor of States rights to punish faithless electors. There are laws in 24 States that punish faithless electors, and in States where these laws do not exist it's up to the people of those States to impose them. Furthermore, Faithless Electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. That elector's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes. Regardless, it is up to each States to handle faithless electors in whatever manner they see fit as the Electoral Votes belong to the States. >>>>>>>>>>> SUMMARY We seem to forget the structure of our own government. We've fallen into the idea that the Federal Government is the only government in the land and that people in California and people in Nebraska don't have individual governments of their own. We're forgetting about the States. Our country is a Federal Republic of independent governments united under one banner. Each state is free to govern itself and the role of the federal government is to preserve the union. Citizens fall under the category of their own States. This is why we have laws regarding state residency and other laws that vary from state to state. Each state is its' own independent government and the people directly elect the representatives for their States. The States then choose the president. Furthermore, the notion of "majority rules" isn't always the best approach in making decisions. The majority is not always right. Granting decision power to the minority some of the time shows our commitment to all people. Which is, after all, what we're supposed to be about.