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

I will first refute my opponent's argument and if space allows, return to my own.In his/her first observation, my opponent has clarified that this is a status quo debate. This is true, but I would like you to keep in mind my definition of should: MORALLY BETTER, which refers to an issue of justice and in this case, equality in the value of each and every vote. Since my opponent has failed to provide his/her own definition, it is only right that we should utilize mine. S/he has said that we ought not to “reform legal precedent based off status quo unless we can conclude” the following: A. The status quo DOES have a problem. We can see that the Electoral College is not morally better; rather, it fails to uphold equality in elections. The Electoral College system not only ignores votes due to the state winner-take-all policy, but compounds this inequality 51 times for the 51 voting jurisdictions. B. The problem will NOT go away by itself. As long as the state winner-take-all policy still exists, it is inevitable that a large portion of the voters in each state will be ignored, and this number is compounded 51 times, as previously mentioned. C. Changing the status quo will indeed fix this problem. Referring back to my framework, I define should as morally BETTER. Notice that it does not say morally BEST. This is important because no system is perfect, but direct popular vote is indeed BETTER because it greatly improves the equality which the state winner-take-all system fails to uphold. D. The “unintended problems from changing the status quo” HAVE been evaluated. As mentioned, no system is perfect. In the end, there will be votes that are disregarded because they did not favor the majority. However, in direct popular vote, this number is kept to a minimum by placing all votes in a single national pool instead of 51 separate jurisdictions. This means that much less people are ignored, and their votes DO matter because they have a direct say in the overall election. Briefly addressing my opponent’s second observation, the direct popular vote system would use a single, national vote tally to determine the presidency. If votes were counted by state, there would be no difference from the current system which already uses state popular vote totals to determine the winner of electoral votes. All votes will be taken on the same day, and candidates will still be referred to the House of Representatives if they do not win a majority (over 50%) of votes. My opponent claimed in his/her first contention that the EC preserves our moderate government. S/he assumes that a candidate “could represent all fifty states by winning the vote with a minimal plurality.” However, I have established in response to his/her second observation that a candidate would need to either win a majority of popular votes or be selected by the House of Representatives. Also, s/he states that the Electoral College requires landslide victories, which s/he defines as “half of the electoral votes, plus one.” A one-vote difference is definitely NOT a landslide victory; rather, it further emphasizes the fact that the Electoral College is creating RAZOR-THIN MARGINS and EXTREMELY CLOSE outcomes. In direct popular vote, this simply would not happen. “In fact, no presidential election since the 19th century has been won by fewer than 100,000 votes on a nationwide basis” according to John R. Koza, a professor at Stanford University. [1] This confirms that the probability of a close outcome would be decreased, which greatly IMPROVES the MORALITY of the voting system by electing a definitive winner - thus indicating that direct popular vote SHOULD replace the Electoral College.In his/her 2nd contention, my opponent cites the Heritage Foundation in placing his warrant regarding focus. However, this source is strongly conservative and therefore biased. Their website clearly states that it is an organization “whose mission is to formulate and promote CONSERVATIVE public policies.” [2] Therefore, my opponent has failed to support his claim with reliable evidence. The judge should also consider that just 17.0% of American citizens live in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, North, Carolina, and Florida combined, the 5 most controversial swing states in the 2008 election according to the New York Times. [3] By contrast, 80.3% of citizens reside in metropolitan areas according to the 2010 census. [4] The metropolitan areas clearly represent a greater part of the country, thus candidates will campaign to more people with direct popular vote. This is morally better, so it should replace EC.My opponent states in his/her 3rd cont. that the EC respects the states, and DPV takes away the voice of the small states. The fact remains, however, that small states are currently OVERrepresented. A vote cast in a less populous state is currently worth THREE to FOUR TIMES one cast in a more populated state. “Although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not allow such extreme deviations from the ‘one person, one vote’ standard in legislative apportionment, they are perfectly tolerated in the apportionment of the Electoral College” according to John Mark Hansen of the Michigan Law Review. This is NOT an equal representation, while in direct popular vote, the “one person, one vote” standard is upheld. Using my definition of should as morally better in terms of equality, direct popular vote thus SHOULD replace electoral vote in presidential elections.We have successfully rebutted each of our opponent’s points and shown why the direct popular vote is better in every scenario, thus we urge a pro ballot. Thank you.Sources:[1] http://www.every-vote-equal.com...[2] http://www.heritage.org...[3] http://elections.nytimes.com...[4] http://factfinder.census.gov...