Should the electoral college be abolished?

I'm doing a project for debate class, and I say yes, it should be abolishedShould the electoral college be abolished?
I went over this in my last semester, and no, it should not.Should the electoral college be abolished?
No It should not, and it never will because it doesn't benefit the smaller states the National Government would need to change it.
No. I live in Arkansas, and if anyone at all knows me knows I voted for Obama. But our 6 votes went for McCain, which was the will of my state. I think tweaking it so that large cities (say LA, or New York) were separated from their states votes might work, but the Democrats will never go for that.
No. Doing so could lead to the smaller states getting neglected. And plus, it reinforces the concept of federalism.
Yes. It is pointless and outdated. When the electoral vote coincides with the popular vote, the electoral college proves pointless. When it does not, it overturns the popular vote.
This question gets asked in OT at least once a month.
[QUOTE=''-Sun_Tzu-'']No. Doing so could lead to the smaller states getting neglected. And plus, it reinforces the concept of federalism.[/QUOTE]As opposed to now, where larger states are sometimes neglected. Let's face it, how much attention did California and New York get in the 2008 election?
[QUOTE=''danwallacefan'']I'm doing a project for debate class, and I say yes, it should be abolished[/QUOTE]

While you make a strong argument, no I don't.
No, it shouldn't. It would render campaigning anywhere but NYC, LA and Chicago useless.
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989'']Yes. It is pointless and outdated. When the electoral vote coincides with the popular vote, the electoral college proves pointless. When it does not, it overturns the popular vote.[/QUOTE]That is an interesting way to look at it. I would have thought it is fine, but now I see it is seemingly futile.
Nah, I'd say it's pretty effective. Only a few cases in history did the popular vote not hold up, not every system can be perfect.
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989'']Yes. It is pointless and outdated. When the electoral vote coincides with the popular vote, the electoral college proves pointless. When it does not, it overturns the popular vote.[/QUOTE]How big is the state of Montana in terms of population?
[QUOTE=''Theokhoth'']How big is the state of Montana in terms of population?[/QUOTE] Just shy of 1 million.
The system of the electoral college is likewise unfair. Let's face it, if a state splits 51-49 (which is not uncommon), then 49% of the people in that state were effectively ignored. Their votes did not matter.
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989''][QUOTE=''-Sun_Tzu-'']No. Doing so could lead to the smaller states getting neglected. And plus, it reinforces the concept of federalism.[/QUOTE]As opposed to now, where larger states are sometimes neglected. Let's face it, how much attention did California and New York get in the 2008 election?[/QUOTE]

Larger states are neglected during the elections. I'm not going to deny that, but the needs of the larger states are never neglected when it comes to determining policy. To do so would be idiotic. The same is not true, however for smaller states. The electoral college is one of the only features in the American form of government that guarantees that the needs of the smaller states are at least considered. At it's most basic form, the electoral college serves as a check on populism (not that populism is a bad thing necessarily, but it is not unreasonable for there to be a check on it).
[QUOTE=''LukeAF24''][QUOTE=''Theokhoth'']How big is the state of Montana in terms of population?[/QUOTE] Just shy of 1 million.[/QUOTE]Sweet.Now compare that with the population of Arizona, which is about 6.5 million.See where I'm going with this? If Arizona picks Governor Fascist Frank for our President and Montana picks Senator Democratic Denny, Fascist Frank wins.
[QUOTE=''chessmaster1989'']The system of the electoral college is likewise unfair. Let's face it, if a state splits 51-49 (which is not uncommon), then 49% of the people in that state were effectively ignored. Their votes did not matter.[/QUOTE]As opposed to the popular vote, where 49% of the entire country is ignored? This method is far, far better for determining what an individual state wants and for electing a candidate. The popular vote would fall apart within ten years.
[QUOTE=''Theokhoth''][QUOTE=''LukeAF24''][QUOTE=''Theokhoth'']How big is the state of Montana in terms of population?[/QUOTE] Just shy of 1 million.[/QUOTE]Sweet.Now compare that with the population of Arizona, which is about 6.5 million.See where I'm going with this? If Arizona picks Governor Fascist Frank for our President and Montana picks Senator Democratic Denny, Fascist Frank wins.[/QUOTE]...and your point is...?
In addition, the Electoral College helps to the cause of electing a reasonable, moderate president rather than an extremist.