The Electoral Collage should be Abolished

I will first give my remaining assertion then I'll defend and refute.Assertion 3- The Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winningThis assertion states that presidential candidates can put all their money on a big state like CA or TX. With the EC you need nationwide support. If the EC is abolished Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado will be completely ignored. Their interests won't be satisfied and the 3 high population states NY, CA, and TX will get all the attention. My opponent says this is okay because every vote has an equal value. That is true but the candidates even think about their needs and in the end they'll be voting for what's good for NY, CA , and TX. That would be a mess!Defense of my arguments:First of all I'd like to say that Pro's evidence is unreliable because the author of your source is a blogger who has nothing to do with this. Trent has actually made a name for himself. My other source is someone who studied the constitution in college and he also supports my point.Pro responded to my first assertion by saying that "the majority is more important than minorities in a democracy." He's basically saying that one race are more important than the rest of the races. We banned that sort of bias since civil rights and what he said is completely unconstitutional (goes against the phrase "all men are created equal). Pro also said that "A democracy is about doing what most of the people want to do, not what a few people want to do." 34% of the US is a lot of people (not a few) and they deserve a say. Pro also stated that minorities are already under-represented even though (a) I stated that they help minorities and (b) that completely contradicts with his second assertion and the his refutation to my first assertion. Pro's reason for contradicting himself was this, "EC causes candidates to focus much more on groups like Cuban immigrants and poor orange farmers in Florida." First of all he didn't give any reasons for this. Second of all I clearly stated in the 2nd round that Hispanics and blacks benefit from the EC. Pro responded to my second assertion by saying that the federal gov. would set up a voting age. Pro's response to my voter turnout point is that it didn't do well in history. That's right. The reason it didn't do well was that the EC was used in history. also he didn't respond to my point about stuffing ballot boxes and how the EC made politics much less extreme.Refutation of Pro's arguments:Pro clarified that back in the day there weren't pledged electors and said that my refutation to his 1st argument was wrong. I already stated that he real reason why the EC was created was to protect the rights of the small states and encourage "moderation, compromise and coalition building. The most important reason why the EC was made though was to protect the rights of the smaller states. Nowadays it also helps minorities.Pro stated that I had to prove how the minority vote would be wiped out if the EC was abolished or his 2nd argument would still stand. I already said why (refer to the last two sentences of Assertion 1).Pro stated in defense of his 3rd point in response to me saying that taking away the EC will remove all value from Wyoming by saying that every vote has the same value. The content of my third assertion refutes that. To refute his argument about a people in the state not having their vote count because of winner take it all. Though this is bad the switching to a popular vote would lead to the catastrophes mentioned in assertions 1 and 3. Secondly, my opponent has no evidence (other than the unrelated blogger) for his points mentioned in this debate since comments don't count as part of this debate (he has to mention his evidence next round or admit that he has no evidence).Vote con!Sources:(1)http://www.cato.org......(2)http://www.usnews.com......(3)http://www.aim.org.....