Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

In this speech, I will crystallize my own points and briefly attack my opponent’s.First, the state winner-take-all system DOES create imbalances in elections. Imbalance how? Millions of votes don’t make it past the state level. Because the winner-take-all system awards the electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes in the state regardless of whether he won by 1 vote or 1000 votes, he still earns all of the state’s electoral votes. This is what Pekec was saying - this leads to some votes being worth less than others because of the imbalance in margins. Naturally, each vote in a state where the winner had a small margin would be more critical than in a state with a large winning margin. And because there are 51 separate jurisdictions in which this happens, the number of votes that are left behind is compounded 51 times. But why does this matter? Well, if you were a Republican voter in California, which has historically voted democratic, wouldn’t you feel frustrated that no matter who the candidates are, you always vote for the losing candidate (and therefore you might as well have stayed home)? It’s not morally just for votes to count more in battleground states than safe states. My subpoint B was that close outcomes are much LESS likely in direct popular vote, as supported by John R. Koza of Stanford.. This is true. So because close outcomes are less likely, recounts are also much less likely, and we wouldn’t have to go through the “arduous process,” as my opponent claims. Also, my opponent’s source for his refutation to my argument regarding the 1876 election came from Wikipedia, a completely NON-RELIABLE source since it can be edited at will by anyone with Internet access. For all we know, the article might have been written by a member of the KKK. Once again, my opponent’s argument is not substantiated by evidence, while mine are. By the way, I have nothing against Hayes - I just used him as an example.Also, DPV DOES ensure vote equality.Bush won the most votes in 2004, thus he won the presidency. Simple. But this isn’t the same as the STATE winner-take-all system. I already mentioned why some votes are worth more in close outcomes, and why this is significant. Also, I didn’t say that close elections as a whole are immoral - I said that when state margins are close, then it’s immoral due to the imbalance in the value of the votes. Again, I already addressed this above. Additionally, small states ARE over-represented. If you’ll remember my previous source, John Mark Hansen of the Michigan Law Review, individual voters small states do have 3-4 times the power of individuals in large states. This is against the “one person, one vote” standard and thus is immoral because it gives some people more power than others. If you were a resident of Pennsylvania, wouldn’t you feel frustrated if your vote has ¼ the power of one from Wyoming? Of course. My opponent also mentioned abolishing the Senate - the resolution clearly states “in presidential elections,” so that argument is beyond the scope of this debate. In response to my opponent’s attack on my framework, if the HOR is dominated by one party, then it’s not fair to the candidates even now that the HOR chooses the president if no one wins a majority. The two systems are equal in that regard.I have proven why direct popular vote is indeed the more moral system, which is the weighing mechanism that my opponent has agreed to - thus I urge a pro ballot. Thank you for your time and attention.