Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections

As I am pro I shall first rebuttal the con then create my own arguments Resolved direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections Con Arguments Contention 1-Electoral college protects the smaller states Now first a technical question of this Contention to the con. By small are you referring to population? I will assume that you are, could you please clarify in next round? Now to my Attack on this Contention 1.The electoral college does not protect the smaller population states In fact the electoral doesn't even protect the large states With the electoral college all states where it is usually a winner take all situation. Meaning if you won the most electoral votes in the then you won all. Now some states are what is called "no worry states". This is where a candidates of either party has historically found support. Examples of this would be Texas for republicans and New York and California for democrats. I would also like to note that California is the largest state, Texas is the second largest and New York is the third. Now the primary focus of the Electoral college is on "swing states"(See chart on spending in 2004 election). These are states which are neither the smallest or biggest. Historical swing states and population ranks include Ohio-Ranked 7th in Population Michigan-8th Virginia-12th Indiana-15th Now why should these states receive the most attention? There honestly is no solid answer against this. In the 2004 election together neither candidate spent 1 million dollars on California(the largest state), but they can spent 8 million on its neighbor Nevada? The electoral college protects no one. Contention 2-Spending This correlation of statistics does not make sense an is falsely calculated. My opponent did not factor in that you do not have to spend the same amount of money on each state. In fact I have a chart that shows how much money they spent on each state an that most of the money spent in that election was on Swing states.(See chart spending) These states are This further increases my main rebuttal point that the electoral college discriminates against large and small states. Contention 3-Vote fraud The reason for vote fraud in any election in primarily from the Electoral College and that many electoral colleges do their vote on pen and paper. Whereas most current direct popular vote is done on a computer. Now to my arguments Contention 1-The Electoral College Discriminates... Sub-point A-...against the voter With the electoral College the voter's voice is not even close to being heard and how it increases the irrelevancy of the average person's vote. With the Elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the majority of the popular vote, meaning the majority of the country did not support them. This shows that the electoral College can elect presidents that do not have the full support of the people. Here's an fictitious example of this argument A-California has 33 million people(Lets assume they all vote) B-California is seeing a raise in republican voters which equals 16 million C-California's current democrat voters are 17 million D-Using the electoral college then the state will vote democratic E-16 million people's votes are ignored Without the electoral college than 16 million peoples can be heard. Sub-point B-...Against the presidential Candidate and the state itself The presidential candidate does not have the chance to have his voice heard if the state is a "no-worry" state. This point while seeming small is actually very important considering if the discriminated president wins the election then he might feel entitled not to help that state out in times of needs and because of his political reasons. With direct popular vote than there is no trouble of a no worry state and some small demographics can give the presidential candidates their support. Direct popular vote is the true majority will of the country and what most of the people think is best. Why have 1 person vote for 1,000,000 that don't want him to vote for them? Why have a candidate spend next to no money on a state where he knows he would get votes according to the views of a handful of politicians? Sources- chart on spending in the 2004 election-http://upload.wikimedia.org... popular winner loses election-http://upload.wikimedia.org...