The Electoral College Voting System In the US Should Be Replaced

I argue that the Electoral College should be repealed and replaced with a popular voting system. A) Four times in history, the person that received more votes lost (John Quincy Adams in 1824, Samuel Tilden in 1876, Grover Cleveland in 1888, and Al Gore in 2000). With four losses in 55 elections, that is a failure rate of 7.2%. Would anybody tolerate a sport where by a quirk of the rules there was a 7% chance that the loser would win? What if nuclear reactors had a 7% chance of a meltdown every time they were used? Nobody would support nuclear energy. So I have ask why would anybody support such a broken system? [1]B) Just four states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Pennsylvania received more than 50% of the total visits by a presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Only seventeen states were even visited by a presidential candidate during the race. This happens because presidential candidates know which states they are going to win, and which states they are going to lose. As a result, the only states that even really receive visits are "swing states" i.e. states that could swing either way in the election. This is a problem because the candidates will do whatever they can to win these states, and will therefore give them things that the rest of the country doesn't get. [2] [3]C) Due to the way that the Electoral College is set up, a candidate only needs to win 22% of the popular vote. If they won 51% of the popular vote going from smallest to largest, they'd get to 270 Electoral College Votes (The minimum to win) while only needing 22% of the population of those states. It becomes even worse when you realize that because 40% of Americans don't vote, therefore you can become president with a mere 13.2% of the popular vote. [2]D) "The Electoral College system further distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population... an individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California... It’s closer to quadruple than triple." [3] How could anybody argue that this a good thing? I understand that it was invented to keep the big states from dominating the small states, but your vote shouldn't be worth 1/3 of someone else's vote just because they live in a small state. E) There is a possibility of a tie because 538 (the total number of votes) is an even number. If the Electoral College is tied, the House of Representatives breaks that tie. There are 435 representatives in total. Thankfully an odd number and a guaranteed tiebreaker. However, in reality, each representative doesn't get one vote, each state gets one vote. This is an awful system because not only are there 50 states and another opportunity to tie, but 50% of the population lives in just 10 states. Therefore the 24 states that contain a vast majority of the population are outnumbered by the 26 states with a vast minority of the population. As I pointed out in C, it would be possible to win with just the least populated states. If one candidate promised the small states everything they could ever want, he would get elected even if only a minority of people even wanted him in the first place. [4]While most of the things I pointed out in this round were either theoretical or relatively uncommon, it should be noted that these things shouldn't even be able to happen. In summary, we need a popular vote system in the United States because with the current Electoral College voting system, there is a possibility of minority rule in the country. Minority rule in a democracy is never a good thing. Every vote should count the same and highly populated states shouldn't be punished for having a lot of people.I look forward to Con's response. [1] http://www.factcheck.org...[2] [3] http://www.minnpost.com...[4]