Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

First of all, in response to my opponents post for the fourth round, I believe that my refutations should be accounted for considering I was going to have the last say in the debate either way, whether or not I forfeited my third round. That said, I would like to first defend my own case and then move on to attack his case. In response to my first contention he says that popular sentiment is not enough to change our goverment. However, Are we not a democracy? Shouldn't the people's voices be heard within our government? The answer is a definitive yes. According to my definition of democracy, which was the only proposed definition within the debate, rule is given to the majority directly or indirectly. In response to his attack on my first contention sub-point B, he says that one person, one vote was not the founders intention. I think my opponent may have been confused about this contention. As I pointed out in my second contention, the founders designed the government based on a different America than the one that we have today. According to my opponent's logic, the Constitution should not be changed (through amendments) because it goes against the founders' intention; slavery should not have been abolished because in the constitution it wasn't the intent of the founders to abolish slavery. I would also like to point out that he basically ignored the point of the contention which was that the Electoral College overrepresents people, thus violating the principles of democracy. In response to my second contention, he basically says that it doesn't matter if the Electoral College is out of date if it works "tremendously well." However, I would like to point out that the Electoral College doesn't work "tremendously well." The purpose of the Electoral College is to elect a president that represents the people. However it has failed in this task since 4 times in our history has our president been elected without the popular majority of votes. This means that 1 out of every 16 elections, the president does not effectively represent the people. Moving on to attack his contentions, in his first argument he basically states that since the Electoral College has "worked" for two hundred years, it should not be abolished. However, as I previously pointed out, the Electoral College does not work and does not fulfill its purpose once out of every sixteen elections. How then can my opponent claim that it has succeeded in fulfilling its' job? In his second contention he says that direct popular vote is susceptable to voter fraud. And he stated that voter fraud does not have an effect with the Electoral College. However I would like to say that voter fraud would actually have MORE of an effect in the Electoral College opposed to direct popular vote. This is so because if voter fraud were able to be significant enough to switch an entire state in its allocation of its' electoral votes, that would be far greater than the number of votes that were switched as a result of voter fraud. In his final contention my opponent claims that the Electoral College creates a more moderate America. This is however fundamentaly flawed. The two party system that is supported through the Electoral College actually increases the polarization of political parties. It is either Republican or Democrat, there is no middle ground because of the Electoral College. In the perameters of today's debate, we are arguing which side better represents the people. The two party system obviously does not represent the people because it limits the political choices of the people. According to the Rasmussen Reports, 33.6 percent of Americans don't idntify themselves with Democrats or Republicans. This means that in presidential elections, these people aren't being represented properly since they basically have to choose the lesser of two evils instead of identifying with a party that represents their ideals. It is for these reasons that I urge a Pro ballot.