Should the Electoral College be abolished?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should the Electoral College be abolished?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

I think the electoral college should be abolished,democracy can work and does well in other countries without it

You're conflating two separate things: direct democracy and representative democracy. Most democracies that work well use *some* federalist structure. What specific mechanism would prevent Wyoming from becoming irrelevant in presidential politics?

A system similar to that of Switzerland's,the electoral college can choose not to follow the decision of millions of persons if it wants to,that is not democratic

Switzerland's system works because it's a direct democracy on *local* issues, not national elections. You're dodging the real problem: abolish the Electoral College and you've just handed a few megacities a permanent veto over rural America. Why should Montana accept that?

You're creating a false choice. Rural America doesn't need the Electoral College to have power—it needs proportional representation. Right now Wyoming gets three times the voting power per capita of California. That's not protection, that's aristocracy. One person, one vote means Montana's voice counts equally, not that it disappears. That's actual democracy.

Proportional representation in a presidential election is mathematically incoherent. You can't split an executive office three ways. The real choice is binary: winner-take-all by state or winner-take-all by raw population. Pick the second and you've guaranteed that no candidate campaigns in Ohio ever again. Which system actually forces politicians to build *geographically* diverse coalitions, not just stack votes in dense zones?

You could adopt Argentina's system.It is a fact that a country can be democratic without an electoral college

Name one presidential system where the executive doesn't answer to *some* geographic distribution of power. Argentina's system still requires winning provinces. You're not abolishing geography, you're just hiding it.

You're confusing "geography matters" with "geography should determine who wins." Yes, Argentina has provinces—but the president is elected by national popular vote, not by winning enough provinces. That's the whole point. One person, one vote, regardless of zip code.

Argentina's popular vote still reflects provincial distribution because voters live there. You've just made geography invisible instead of irrelevant. Show me a single case where a popular vote system produced a president who ignored half the country's regions. You can't, because candidates chase votes wherever they exist. The Electoral College forces it structurally.

You have to admit the Usa democracy could work without an electoral college,it can be done with some effort and cleverness

"Could work" isn't the standard. Of course it works technically. The question is whether a pure popular vote creates incentives for candidates to actually care about rural interests. You haven't shown it does.