The Electoral Collage should be Abolished

Assertion 1 There are two problems here. The first is that the majority is more important than minorities in a democracy. A democracy is about doing what most of the people want to do, not what a few people want to do. While I do agree that it is bad to oppress minorities, the president should be more focused on what is better for everyone. The other problem is that the EC actually reduces the value of the minorities" votes. As I said in the last round, the votes of people in large states, where Con claims there is a high minority percent, actually count for less than those in smaller states. In this case, the minorities would actually be under-represented. Now, I realize that this might sound like a contradiction of my second point, but the difference lies in the size of the minorities. The EC causes candidates to focus much more on groups like Cuban immigrants and poor orange farmers in Florida (1) than they should, whereas the African American, Hispanic, and other such minorities are large enough to have some power in a popular election. Assertion 2 Con has two main arguments here. The first is that some states would lower the voting age. Because this is a democracy, it is not a bad thing to have more voices and more votes. If there was a problem with this though, the federal government could make a law setting an official national voting age. Also, there would probably not be very many people under 18 that came out to vote because voter turnout % drops as you look at younger groups. (2) Con"s other argument is that candidates will try to increase voter turnout. Historically, an increased voter turnout has been a good thing, so I don"t see what the problem is. A state where 100% of the voters show up and vote for one candidate should not have the same weight as a state where 50% of the voters show up and are evenly split. Also, this Trent England guy that Con is getting info from is not a legitimate source. The website he got it from is a debate/opinion site like DDO, so there is no reason to believe him. Also, the Freedom Foundation that he is a part of is a volunteer organization to "help the next generation". (3) This gives him no authority on the subject. Now onto the defense of my arguments. The way that the EC was intended to work was meant for the way things were when it was created. My opponent says that people still had to vote, but this can be deceiving. According to what they originally wrote "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting". The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress. " (4) This means that the legislature got to choose how the electors were chosen, often times choosing them themselves. Also, the electors where to vote for who they believed should be president, not necessarily what the people wanted. Finally, as I said last round, sending the election to congress means the Senate decides, which is not proportional to what the people want. My opponent gives no substantial argument against my second point. He only says "if we switch to a popular vote the minority vote will not exist anymore and they will not be able to make their interests be satisfied". Unless he can justify this or support it somehow, then my argument still stands. On my third argument, my opponent seems to miss the point. First, he says that taking away the EC will remove all value from Wyoming. This is not necessarily a bad thing because each individual person will have the same value and the value of each vote is more important than the value of each state. My opponent completely skipped my argument about a person"s population counting for a candidate that they don"t like and the possibility of the EC vote going against the popular vote.