The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote/run-off system

This is going to be a pretty messy debate, since my opponent chose to go with the "shotgun method" of argumentation as opposed to refuting my contentions individually. I'll begin refuting his assertions now. 1. Swing states--> TURN: Swing states encourage moderation since swing voters can vote for either candidate. A right or left wing extremist will lose in swing states. --> No impact argued, who cares? 2. Lock states --> No impact argued, who cares? --> This is how elections work. It's not like the candidate who wins 40% of the vote gets to be in office 40% of the time, elections ARE winner take all. The difference between having votes counted at a state level or at a national level is merely symbolic. 3. Chaos--> An electoral college tie has never happened, and mathematically is extremely improbable. This is a poo argument, I could just as easily say "direct vote can tie" even though thats mathematically improbable. --> No impact argued. Why exactly does it matter if the house chooses the president...? 4. Small victoriesThis point is nonsensical. Elections are, by their very nature, winner take all. 5. Small parties--> It's nonsensical to criticize the EC for having two "main" candidates, when a runoff system does the exact same thing.--> No impact argued, who cares? 6. Constituancy--> TURN: The electoral college fits the federal nature of the United States. The president is not the supreme leader, but rather the representative of the federal government to work with the representatives of the states, so it makes sense that the president would be decided by each specific state individually. --> Saying that other officials are elected in other ways is not an argument. --> This is a false argument. Senators and representatives do not "govern" their individual districts, they represent them in the federal government. Refer back to my turn. 7. Senators --> This isn't even an argument. Not using something something to elect senators has nothing to do with the president. Refer to my response to his 6th argument. --> Since the president is a figure that has to work with all states, the electoral college is set up, just as the legistlature, to give a voice to the smallest states. They have a voice larger than their population to keep the large states from swamping the small states. This isn't a concern for the election of representatives, since districts are SET UP to make sure that the people in them generally have the same interests. I actually think it would be better to elect senators by the state legistlature to ensure that all interests of the state have a say instead of just the majority, but that's beside the point. 8. All votes should be counted--> No impact argued, who cares?--> The electoral college goes with the popular vote around 96% of the time, while still preserving the federal nature of the United States. That's a good trade-off, especially since many of the discrepancies were the result of voter suppression. My opponents arguments have literally no impacts at all--you prefer the status quo since he gives no compelling reason to change it. ==My case==It's going to be difficult to answer all his attacks since he didnt do them by a contention basis, but I'll do my best. Recall also that I've already won the debate since he gives no impacts and the status quo is preferred by default. To my observation one he replies with some rhetoric that votes count more or less in certain areas. Whatever. The fact is that under DPV or the EC it is UNDECIDED VOTERS who are being courted. Eliminate the EC and you have the votes of undecided people having their votes seem more important than those who are already decided. He gains no solvency. 1. ModerationHe basically drops this argument. His only responses are strawmen. The argument was that the EC forces the larger parties to absorb the interests of the smaller, and more radical ones--something that DPV doesn't make happen. He either completely misunderstands this or can't think of a refutation to it, so I'll extend it.Again, there is no need for moderation when the only goal is to get to the second round of voting and then get selected as the lesser of two evils. There is no need for compromise, and as such minority opinions get completely ignored. Compare our system to Europe (which has DPV), where the parties are much more extreme, and the damaging effects of radical ideologies like socialism can better be observed. He argues that a candidate can win "as few as 13 states...and still win the election." This is likely true...but the reason those states have so many electoral votes is precisely because they have higher populations...victories in all of the large states would be an almost certain popular vote victory--especially considering that these states are highly polarized. He cites the example of the 1992 election to try to disprove my point..except that voters still favored Clinton over his opponent by a wide margin. TURN: Elections like 1992 show the large parties that they need to attract swing voters. Ross Perot doomed Bush I, but the republican party picked itself up and reformed its platforms to sweep the 1994 elections. 2. FocusHe drops the Heritage card showing the results of implementing a direct popular vote, and the group polarization effect. So extend the impact that polarization will increase, and cross apply this concession to contention one. He completely misunderstands this point as a matter of fact. Non swing states have plenty of say. The fact is that swing states, by being swing states ARE a good focus for candidates...they have on balance a more moderate ideology, which means that cnadidates cant win simply by being extreme in their own "safe areas". Party platforms are more moderate, again compare with Europe. His sole argument basically relies on "well every vote needs to be equal", but what he isn't understanding is that they ARE equal in each state. And under the federalist model, the states decide the president, not the people. He again misunderstands the point, arguing that one vote is one vote, but the fact is that under the EC small states do have higher representation, to give them a voice that they would lack under DPV. Under the EC politicians campaign in both large and small states because there are many swing states. This ensures that more peoples interests are accounted for.Most of his arguments against my contentions lack substance, or ask for evidence for predicted events that haven't occurred. He posits that the house and the senate are for regional concerns, not the president. Ermm, the president is supposed to represent the federal government to the states, so obviously he has to take regional interests into account when trying to get federal action to take place. Recall also that his entire argument falls apart when you look at the solid fact that its incredibly rare for the popular vote not to follow the electoral vote. He asks: "why should we elect the NATIONAL leader by each STATE? " because the "national leader" is not that...he's the leader of the federal government. There's a difference, and since states are supposed to have power themselves as well. 3. StatesHe drops the Cato card, so extend that impact. That's CRITICAL, because he has no offense, and since drops=concessions, I now do. I win by default. His response makes no sense, so the senate, which gives small states disproportionate representation, governs the whole nation, and is elected state by state (sound familiar?) shouldn't be abolished, but the EC, which is the EXACT SAME THING except it's one individual being elected instead of 100 should be abolished? His reasoning is fallacious.Finally he tries to argue that "We don't elect state leaders by county" except we do...not counties, but districts. This way, the interests of all communities are represented. Since the pres. is but one man, the EC is the only way to ensure this representation still happens. Vote Neg.