The Electoral College Should Distribute Votes Proportionally

1. Plan makes the probability of a loser winning abysmal, but it still exists.Well, as I pointed out, the smaller the state, the less proportional it will be because the numbers are smaller for the electoral college. The fact still is that there is a chance a losing candidate of the popular vote could win, albeit it would be with much smaller margins than we've seen, it could still happen. The fact that the chances are small is irrelevant. As long as the chance exists, why should it be tolerated? For example, let's suppose you were to have a surgery, and there were two options for it. One of them has a 1% chance of you dying still, but the other has a 0% chance. Why would you take the one that still has a chance, albeit a small one, that you would die?2. Small states should not get those extra votesCandidates already don't pay attention to small states, how would a proportional electoral college fix that? Literally the only small state that received even a single visit from candidates in 2016, was New Hampshire. [3] The area with the most small states(rocky mountain area and states east of it) didn't receive any visits from candidates, so your point is void. The electoral college doesn't make candidates pay attention to small states to begin with. In fact, not only are the smaller states ignored, but the largest states: New York, California, and Texas are mostly ignored under the electoral college system. Is it really a good thing for a candidate to ignore the most people there are out there? Wouldn't it be a good thing for candidates to listen to the areas with the greatest amount of people since we value democracy?3. 5, 6, 7: Yes, these points are true, even I concede that a proportional electoral college would be better than what we currently have, but I'm not arguing against that, as agreed to in comments, you said I could argue for getting rid of the electoral college altogether. I'm arguing that would be better than having a proportional electoral college. Basically a proportional electoral college is "good" but getting rid of it is "best". 4. What is it defending us from?I question whether this defense is even necessary, again, as I pointed out: who is more likely to mess up: Tens of millions of people, or 538 people? Also, who is easier to bribe or coerce? Tens of millions, or 538? The electoral college isn't protecting us, it's making it more likely we will have a terrible candidate. Unless you can explain how it's more likely that tens of millions of people will put up a terrible candidate than 538, I don't see how you can argue it is defending us. Now this may be off-topic, but I would argue a better line of defense would be to allow presidential recalls from the people. If the candidate is truly bad, then the people should be allowed to recall them. 8. Metropolitan areasFirst of all, what are the chances of someone winning 100% of the votes in all of the metropolitan areas? It's never been done before, in addition, the person would have to get none of the votes in the grey areas for this arguement to be valid. There is literally no chance of that happening since people of all political persuasions live everywhere. Sure, some areas have a larger amount of liberals and some have more conservatives. Generally, the metropolitan areas have more liberals and the rural areas have more conservatives. However, both also have the opposite ideology, none of them are 100% conservative or 100% liberal. I don't see why we should make the people's votes in metropolitan areas count less than the votes in the areas that are rural. That's what you're doing, you're essentially destroying the idea of one person one vote since in reality, people in Wyoming have more voting power than those in California. How is it fair to make it that some people's votes count less just because they were unfortunate enough to live in a specific area?9. Does America really want small states to have power?As pointed out before, the small states still have no power essentially in deciding who is president, that is why they are completely ignored for the most part during presidential campaigns. The electoral college is doing a terrible job at what you're saying it's supposed to be doing, which is giving small states more say. I would challenge that America values small states though. We may have at one time, but I don't think it is true anymore. Majority of Americans(63%) support abolishing the Electoral college [4] And while I did try looking for what percent of Americans want the senate to be abolished(I could not find that number anywhere, perhaps my opponent might be able to find it), they do certainly want to limit it's power by imposing term limits on them [4]. In addition, we had the 17th amendment passed, which if we valued small states, we wouldn't have passed that amendment since that makes the senate no longer representative of a state, but rather of the people of that state. We've been moving toward a more democratic country, and less about states in general. In addition, the civil war was all about this issue of states versus democracy. While it wasn't exactly small states versus large states, it was about what the majority wanted versus the minority in certain states. 10. Abolishing the electoral college may passSince 63% of Americans, as pointed out before, support abolishing the electoral college, we would only need to organize those people and get them to vote in state legislatures who also have their opinion. Granted, we do have a system that highly favors certain individuals getting in office, I believe it is very possible if we put our minds to it. Plus, in a way, it might be harder to do what my opponent suggests. We could do it in some states, perhaps, but would all of them vote to do it this way? In order for it to change to a proportional system for the whole country, every state would need to change their rules. Good luck on getting all 50 to do that. Whereas, with the suggestion to end the electoral college, only 2/3 of states need to agree. It may be easier to get 2/3 of states to agree on a more radical idea, since majority of Americans support it, than on a less radical idea that all states have to agree with. Sources:[3] http://www.nationalpopularvote.com...;[4] http://www.gallup.com...;