Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

My opponent has dropped all of my arguments last round. She diverged into her one point about voter rights and how an election works. This is enough information to vote con, as she dropped so much. I will refute her arguments yet again, and as these are NEW arguments last round I urge the conduct point. Rc1: Republic vs Democracy The only part we need to talk about is the elections, as this is what the resolution fully pertains too. The framers of the constitution actually rejected the NV! Why? Because they thought our republican form of government need not be controlled by the popular states in the elections. [1] In a republic elections are different then a democracy, as winner usually has the majority vote, but it is not required. The republic system is more fair (EC) as smaller states and minorities votes actually matter. In the NV system all that maters is the big states and the majority ethnicity. Rc2: Popular support ---> First this violates the bandwagon fallacy, again.---> Second it doesn't matter as the small states would all reject the amendment to change the EC, therefore it would never be able be taken down as this will prevent a 3/4 majority.---> Her argument lies on the argument people are being ignored. IF just IF we think the EC ignores people, then the NV is the EC on crack. The NV literally means ALL small states and ALL minorities are worthless. Why? Because the goal is to win the majority now, and you would rather win Texas then Wyoming. And minorities are now worthless as all you want is the majority vote, so everyone would be after the majority ethnic (currently white) vote. This is bad, as then large portions of the country are totally out of the picture. The complaint you are giving is people in NY individually are worth less then a redneck in Wyoming. If anything I approve of this, as it means the states now share power. If we had the NV NY would control a lot more, the states with the biggest population would be in control as everything revolves around population and votes from the majority now. The NV gives all the power to a few large states, while the small states get shoved into a corner. The EC still gives big states more power as a whole, but prevent them from controlling everything. If anything the EC makes it much more fair.Rc3: 2 parties ---> As I ave stated the EC prevents voter fraud through the 2 party encouragement and the extensive re-counts. If we had a NV thousands of candidates would be encouraged to run, and as there would be so many more chances to fraud the vote and would need to be re-counted as the vote would be so close as they split the vote tremendously. [2] (overexerted with the thousands part) But think about it, there is no right to run for president in law, so having a 2 party system is great, as it reduces fraud and it prevents recounts and no right is violated. There is actually no downside to having a 2 party system, as:1. No right to run for president, so no rights are violated 2. it prevents fraud [3]3. It prevents long recounts [3]Rc3: People are not being heard ---> I refuted this in Rc1. If people are not being heard now the NV is going to be the EC on crack as the NV totally ignores large sects of people as worthless, as the EC makes them worthwhile. In a pool of 100,000,000 voters, the minority of one million is now worthless. The EC makes them have a small say in the elections. The NV takes this say away. The EC is fair overall as NY still trumps me here in NM, but individually 1 on 1 we are slightly better, but as a whole they win. The majority is still being heard, but the EC makes us have a whisper too. The EC's discrimination you claim balances out. Dropped arguments from pro:Constitution Helps minorities, she focused on the band wagon fallacy this roundadds cohesiveness She only refuted D3...Conclusion:As she has dropped 3/4 of my arguments this round, I urge a con vote. She assumes the BOP as she is asking for a change in the status quo and a change in the constitution herself, and she has not fulfilled her BOP, my smaller BOP has been filled by me. As in PF we debate on evidence, I decree I urge a con vote here as I provided more evidence. I have showed abolishing the EC is more detrimental then helpful, and that the EC's "discrimination" was balanced out in the long run. I have refuted her arguments and the resolution has been defeated. The EC gives minorities and small states a say in elections, a NV takes them away. And last but not least the EC adds to the cohesiveness of the country. It forces you to have a wide range of appeal, and not just win a few big states, like the NV would force. The EC forces you win the Midwest and a few a large states, so the people from the urban areas and the farmers support you. It actually forces a person who is running to have a plan that everyone approves of. As pro said in round one, I have affirmed hte old saying if it ain't broke fix it. Vote CON.http://www.debate.org...