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

Alright, in this final round, I'll clear up any remaining areas of clash in the debate. ="Argument from dismissal"= My opponent complains that many of my attacks on his arguments regarded the lack of impacts coming off of his arguments. First, recognize that I did in fact attack his arguments, refer to my round two. Irionically, it is he who "dismissed" the majority of my attacks. But second and more importantly, the charge of his arguments having no impact is justified. Indeed, his arguments are all a mere sentence long, and he doesn't explain to you why they actually matter. Imagine if I just typed "the EC gives small states a larger voice" (fact) without explaining why that's important...that is the nature of his arguments. This is a critical issue: if the debater advocating a change in the status quo doesn't have an impact behind his arguments than he loses by default. It is not an "argument from tradition" fallacy as he posits, but rather the acknowledgement that theres no reason to change the status quo if there are no reasons to do so...that's obvious, not to mention the fact that he, as Pro, has the burden of proof in this round.=Affirmative case=Pro completely misunderstands my main response to his case, which is that, given the federal nature of the United States, the president, and the entire Federal government, is a partner with the individual states to enact policy. The president resides over the people only in the sense that the Federal government resides (partially) over the states, so the States should be the ones to choose the president, not the people. Moreover, the electoral college is the best way to ensure that the interests of most states, even small ones, are represented as opposed to the interests of the big cities that will be favored under DPV (he drops both thisa rgument, and the card explaining it). My opponents response is non sensical. He says that the democrats/republicans who live in a "solid" state may as well not vote. That's a dumb response, not to mention that it missed the point entirely. The votes for the candidate in the state that lost were cast in an effort to win, just as the votes for the losing candidate nationwide were cast in an effort to win. He completely drops my turn about how swing states are good. Extend that. Most of his arguments are either unsound or nonsensical. For example, look at his "equality" argument--for one thing even if you buy into this argument, it doesn't provide a compelling enough reason to change the status quo since the scenario of a popular/electoral vote diverge is, historically, 4% and much less when you discount the 33% of those diverges caused by election fraud (election of 1877, the black vote was supressed). Moreover, he doesn't explain what the difference is between counting votes at a state level is vs national other than it's "unequal"...this is untrue because, again, the difference is just symbolic. He's correct in that it's somtimes the voters in a particular state that end up deciding the president, but since no one can forsee this until the votes begin to get counted and the states declared, their votes are not inherently worth more than anyone else's. It's just the way the dice roll that makes theirs critical. He misunderstands my response to his "tie" argument. Nonwithstanding the fact that it's never happened and electoral math makes it extremely unlikely to happen, he doesn't explain why it's bad to have the house, the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, to elect the president. It's true that the odds of a popular vote tie are astronomically less likely than an electoral tie; I was not attempting to compare them. Rather, I was showing that it's ridiculous for my opponent to advocate this argument without understanding that the likelihood of it happening is incredibly slight. He also rudely asserts that I dont understand the EC because apparently I didnt know that the house elects the president if no one reaches 270 electoral votes. Actually, I did know that, I have debated this topic formally at least 10 times after all, but it doesnt matter--he still hasn't explained why the house electing the president is a bad thing, other than "the people should elect the president". He just asserts this, while entirely dismissing my argument (not assertion) that the states should elect the president...ok.His argument about the "main candidates" is more ranting about the two party system than it is an argument against the EC. Not only did he drop my turn that the major parties will modify their platforms to attract those potentially critical fringe voters (while remaining over all moderate), but he didn't explain why his system dismantles the two party system we currently have in place. The fact is, in a runoff only the two parties with the most votes go to the second round. The two party system would remain, except without the benefit of having the best parts of the fringe ideologies absorbed into their platforms.He doesn't seem to understand that the EC gives small states a boost in their "say" when it comes to electing the president. He argues that the house (where seats are given by population, lol) and the senate will protect small states, but not only has he not explained how, he doesn't understand that the president is the entity that approves or rejects bills from the house and senate, so obviously we want the small states to have a say in electing him to keep them from being "bullied" by the larger states and their interests. My opponents arguments are fallacious and he's dropped or failed to refute literally all of my attacks on them. He's failed to meet his BOP, so he loses by default. =My case= My opponent dropped much of it (including all of the sources) in his second round, and dropped almost all of my responses to his attacks in his 3rd round. Still, I will respond to the few attacks he still tried to bring onto my case. 1. ModerationBarely attacked in round two, and his responses are all refuted, and he ignores it in round three. So, dropped and therefore conceded. Dropped the CATO card showing the negative effects of implementing DPV. His only response is to assume that a candidate hypothetically won 51% of the vote in the (highly polarized) large states, and 0% in the rest in his attempt to disprove me. Obviously, this isn't something even remotely likely to happen. He drops my turn regarding the 1992 elections.2. Focus Drops the Heritage card and the group polarization effect. He drops the rest of it in round three. Extend. 3. States He says: " There's no need to elect the national leader state-by-state" but time and time again, he's either ignored or misunderstood the fact that since the president works with the states, he should be chosen by the states. Since his only response makes no sense, I'll just extend this. Vote Con.=Voting= I don't usually make a voting guide, but it's warranted in this scenario. For the reasons elaborated above, I've clearly won the arguments points. My opponent exhibited absolutely horrendous conduct, poor formatting (S & G point), and a complete lack of sources, while dropping all of mine. It would seriouly not be a votebomb to vote 7-0 in favor of neg in this debate.