The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.

Here's the deal, I tend to agree with the notion of an electoral college in principal and in what it means in regard to a nation which holds democratic elections. The concept of states votes being lumped into a point system, taking the majority of plurality, and then that being lumped into a point system to be allocated based on the winner has, at least to me and a profusion of people, always seemed counterproductive to a functional democracy. Among the popular arguments made against a direct democracy in regards to elections is for one the tyranny of the majority, an argument I find is efficiently debunked particularly from a master of rhetoric such as myself. Arguing that direct democratic elections would lead to the "tyranny of the majority" fails to be cognizant of a vital point that makes the notion contradictory, we already have a majority executing this alleged form of tyranny, just on a state by state level, so I would implore anyone who makes that case to ask themselves the desideratum inquiry, why is the majority having precedent over who is elected on a national level inherently worse than on a state by state level? Furthermore, is exercising a popular vote to decide who is elected tyrannic in any way, is judging the overall decision of a populace and basing a decision based off that and not of any special interests or dictatorial establishment the least tyrannic way of finding elected officials possible, I would content that it is. The other common but asinine argument is that New York and California would not be the sole deciding factors in elections, an argument that, just as much as the aforementioned, fails to sustain itself on its own merit. As it stands, all that matters in regards to any candidate attaining of all of the delegates points from a state is the majority vote, and it's important to know what this means. This means that in democratically leaning states such as New York and California, campaigning, as it stands, is irrelevant and ineffectual because votes on an individual or municipal don't matter, but if we were to implement a popular vote, how would this change? Well to me, it's more than ostensible, as since every vote would matter candidates would be impelled to take every state seriously as every vote has a legitimate effect on the election, a simple majority would no longer be the threshold for attaining all a state has to offer in regards to how it contributes to an electoral victory. And finally on this vindication, it would be an accurate assessment that even in a popular vote system it is still true California and New York would be more influential in the outcome of the election than any other individual states, but to me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. If those states have the highest population, then candidates, in a democratic election, should want to consider most heavily the areas with the highest population, as they, as it would intimate, have the most constituents of a democracy. It is the same reason why Representatives in the House of Representatives are decided proportionally based on state population, they have the most people affected by the nations government, and for that reason should have the most weight, in accordance with the previously denoted claim. But why am I, as a master of rhetoric, making these grandiose intimations that seem to be counter persuasive to my cause here, the answer to that inquiry, is that I want to make clear all the claims I debunked are not the ones I will be making my argument on throughout this debate. As I said previously, I am an unwavering believer in the concept that, in form and principal, a popular vote is the ideal electoral system. But the notion I am far more dubious of, is that it is plausible in practice? That's the case I'll be making here, and you'll see that in the coming rounds of discourse, but for now, I'll rest the introductory round, subsequent of one more concise point.