The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections

Rebuttals14th AmendmentMy opponent essentially says that the 14th amendment condemns the electoral college. However, this is incorrect. The 14th amendment promotes, instead, that each individual has the RIGHT to vote. [1] The United States' system does allow this. Splitting it up into the electoral college simply alleviates the effect of uninformed votes. Every vote still counts and goes towards the candidate selected.GerrymanderingMy opponent voices that this is a concern, however, it is not. I mentioned regionalism in my case, essentially the effect of gerrymandering. Instead of a national vote, which does not show candidates where they need to campaign, the electoral college give candidates each a fair opportunity to explain their campaign and what they intend to do in office to the states that are relatively divided. The Federal Election Commission explains, "Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation... A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election." [2] Gerrymandering would not be detrimental with an electoral college, because regional campaigning is necessary to perhaps sway the votes of voters towards a particular candidate.RecountMy opponent claims recounts are not relevant, and are a thing of the past. This is false. "In fact, by making “every vote count” NPV would incentivize voter fraud in every city and state. Political machines would swing into action and squeeze every possible vote out of each district in hopes of swinging a national election. Further, a competitive election would produce a replay of Florida 2000, but on a national scale. Recounts would take place across the United States, along with endless litigation and doubts about the legitimacy of the eventual winner." [3] This is further backed by the Huffington Post: "Under its (NPV) [direct election] plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others: • By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties' media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole. • Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout. • Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions. • NPV supporters claim, accurately, that a direct election for president would reduce or eliminate the possibility that a fringe candidate (like a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul) winning five percent or less of the vote in a single state could serve to defeat a major party candidate from the same side of the political spectrum. But the much greater danger to American democracy is that direct elections may make it possible for a president to be elected by no more than 30 percent of the vote, regardless of his or her suitability for office, so long as there is sufficient money and a clever media advisor behind the effort." [4]My opponent has dropped all of my other arguments. Extend those. Vote Con! Sources:[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.fec.gov...[3] http://www.thepelicanpost.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...