LIVE DEBATE: Should the Electoral College be Abolished?

Full RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qvXfL6NQMxkU8e1zn8FqEU7nbE3sfrxASIz4XDVD1kE/edit?usp=sharing

Good debate!

Pros Args:
1. That a few fraudulent votes could easily swing an election with electoral college. Con never responded so Pro gets this.
2. Increases national security. Con's response is that due to recounts and the like, you'd see a lot of delays and thus national security incidents on both sides of the house. Pro didn't really respond and I think Con's argument was good. This arg falls.
3. Certain states have votes worth more than others. Con never responds to this, so it flows for Pro.
4. Increased voter turnout. Con never responded, so Pro gets this arg.

Cons args:
1. That voter fraud happens b/c you put presidents in charge of their own elections, and also huge recounts. Pro never responded so it flows through.
2. Represents minorities better. I had a really hard time following why this was true. However, Pro never responded, so Con gets this arg.
3. Electoral college promotes listening to different groups. Pro's response that on his side, you would lose by only going to places like CA was very good and wasn't really responded to by Con, so this flows to Pro.

So at the end, Pro is left with fraudulent votes swinging elections under EC, certain states having votes worth more, and increased voter turnout. Con is left with voter fraud happening under incumbents and representing minorities. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.

I cancel out the fraudulent vote args on both sides because I wasn't told why they were LIKELY to happen, rather than they COULD happen.

So, Pro is left with certain states having votes worth more and increased voter turnout. Con is left with representing minorities more. The arg that without electoral college, candidates are more likely to appeal to a larger voter base flows to Pro as well.

I wasn't given weighing so I'll do my own. In this case, I think appealing to a large voter base is much more likely to happen than Con's representing minorities more arg because the former simply makes more sense to me. It was just really unclear to me why minorities are represented more on Con's side. Because of that, it immediately outweighs, leaving Pro the clear winner.

I feel like pro narrowly loses. He tries to open up with lack of participation with electoral college which quickly disappears from his big argument, and he tacks on how it protects the minority in the US. The campaigning argument starts off well, but falls apart as Con points out that direct voting means that concentrations of population may defeat the spread of states' different opinions encouraging politicians to travel to different locations. The undermining of democracy is interesting, but Con points out there are a lot of problems with the idea. Pro depends a lot on California, and Con points out that that the voter fraud is troublesome with direct democracy. Con also notes that even though electoral college is somewhat flawed due to contradicting popular vote, the difference required makes pro impact much smaller. Pro makes interesting points about small states, but it's hard to tell exactly what we'll gain by getting rid of electoral college. Whiteflame implements his impact analysis pretty well in the debate and I generally feel I have more to grab onto than Pro.