The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections
The structure is as follows:
R1 - Acceptance
R2 - Arguments
R3 - Arguments
R4 - Closing Statements, no new arguments
This is currently open to anyone with six (6) completed debates.
I accept, presuming the direct elections will be used as a popular vote.
Best of luck! :)
The electoral college was created during the creation of the United States with the idea that it would protect the government from the votes of potentially misinformed electors. These were noble intentions at first yes, but it has later devolved into a system in which "swing states" decide elections, because candidates know that certain states will vote on party lines, all of the effort is poured into a relatively small group of individuals who end up having a disproportionate weight in the national elections. For example, A democrat would campaign very little in California, but heavily in the state of Florida. Therefore, this candidate will largely ignore the needs of California, and focus on the needs of Florida. this creates a situation in which we see increasingly polarized politics. If we were to look at the political history of the United States, a trend becomes very obvious, We have gradually shifted away from a society in which third party candidates could win votes, to a nation in which we only vote for the big candidates.
If we were to host a direct election, we would obtain a point in which the people chose their won politicians.
On to you Con!
The recount is almost absolutely unnecessary to worry about. We live in a modern age with (potentially) internet voting, digital transaction, and methods. As a programmer, i can tell you that f we embraced slightly newer technology, we could remove any potential of a recount.
My 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.  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.
My 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."  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.
My 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."  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.
• 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." 
Luharis forfeited this round.
My opponent has forfeited. But, as mentioned in the comments, it was due to a personal matter. I opt to defer this round. Thus:
VOTERS: only make your votes based on the prior rounds. The forfeit should not affect your decision.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|