Abolish the Electoral College

"In the last line of my 2nd paragraph, I said, "But if you implemented a different standard (for example, the popular vote) then everybody's vote counts the same, and nobody in the population's vote is not counted or worth any less." This shows why another standard, like the popular vote, is superior to the electoral college. With the electoral college, a person's vote counts less based on where they live." This would be relevant- if I hadn't already proved that the popular vote system is terrible. And I did not drop your "Wyoming vs Texas" point. I carefully explained why that scenario was the case, and then I showed how it is perfectly fair. Here- "The fact that Wyoming has fewer people per electoral vote is true, but before condemning it, lets examine why. Each state gets two senators, regardless of population, and then a house of representatives member for approximately every 710,000 people. Each senator and house of reps member counts as an electoral vote. (The exception to these rules is DC. DC has no senators or representatives, but gets 3 electoral votes.) So, two of Wyoming's three votes are from the senators. This is true for all states. Senators have nothing to do with population, so two of those electoral votes are justified. Now lets look at the last vote. This vote is the population vote. True, Wyoming's population is only about 584,000 (Not enough for an electoral vote), but they still need a representative. They pay taxes, right? No taxation without representation. And the senators do not count as representation. So we give Wyoming a representative, which makes things unbalanced. But the alternative is to essentially throw out the votes of hundreds of thousands of people. For more about how this rule came about, go here- http://study.com...; This is not dropping a point. The fact that you continued to argue despite my complete rebuttal is not my fault. You are wrong here, and there is nothing more to say on this point. And when you say "Con said that most places have a "small minority" of dissent so it's realistic and acceptable to ask people to move", you are completely lying. I would appreciate is you actually read my argument instead of skimming it. When I said this before, I meant no offense. Now, I do, because you are showing you do not care by essentially ignoring me, then twisting my words. I said that dissent is small, and so the vast majority of people are helped, not harmed, by the electoral college. Iowa is a swing state. In your previous round, you said that they actually "matter the most". So why are you arguing against them? As for your statement about the 12 final contestants, please tell me how many actually have a chance of winning. Two. I a popular vote system, 12 people can reasonably expect to win an election, which would be disastrous. Also, you have to actually define and go over the Bayh Celler Constitutional amendment, Every Vote Counts amendment, and National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, instead of just listing them. Otherwise, you have not fulfilled your BOP- to prove that these systems would be better than the electoral college. Sources: http://www.slate.com... http://www.sciencebuzz.org... http://www.politico.com...