Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections.

This debate is becoming more and more distorted, somewhat like the Electoral College. Though I will do my best to follow my opponent's Fourth Round statement and reply."In response to my second question he said that America is a Democratic Republic, which is a type of Republic which means that America is in fact a Republic. However in response to question 2a he says that it is not applicable since america isnt a Republic but in the previous question he confirmed that America is a Republic." The United States is not a democracy, it is not a republic, it is a democratic republic. "In 3a he says that the Senate should not be ablolished because it serves the states. However, if you apply his answer of 3a to the question of 3b it would say that since the Senate should not be abolished because it protects states rights shouldnt the electoral college not be abolished because it protects state rights?" The Senate of the U.S. Congress and the Electoral College are two very different topics. The Senate represents the states, the Electoral College is a presidential election device. This is illogical. The Electoral College does not protect small states, it damages some such as Indiana. The direct popular vote gives a porportional voice to all states. I'll attempt to make this as clear as possible for you:1- Electoral College protects some states, hurts others2- Popular vote gives porportional voice to all states3-The U.S. Senate is an entirely different topic"The sentimental attachment to popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College basically means that if you have no reason to abolish the Senate even though it doesnt represent popular majority, then why only apply rights of the popular majority in attacking the electoral college?"Again, the Senate is an entirely different topic. Senate serves the states, the House the people. The Electoral College is a presidential election device, stick to the resolution.The burden of proof still lies upon me to prove that the Direct Popular Vote should replace the Electoral College in presidential elections. I have shown how each of my contentions fixes fundamental flaws in the Electoral College.""the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws" which means that he is implying that direct popular vote has integral flaws which means that it DOESNT fix the problem proposed by PRO in his third contention which makes his third contention void." I don't follow you at all here. The Electoral College and the Direct Popular Vote are very different."if the Constitution is still applicable today (for example the Supreme Courts ruling of the Constitutionaliy of laws), then why is the Constitution not applicable only for the Electoral College? I would like to ask my opponent to briefly answer this question now that it has been clarified along with question 3c."The original Constitution has been changed and altered many times. Each part of the Constitution has been reviewed at one time or another. Simply because one part is distorted does not mean the entire Constitution is distorted."Founding Fathers could have seen distortion since they purposefully placed it there. -Then let's fix the distortion.Electoral College is no longer applicable, but the rest of the Constitution is? How is the Electoral College no longer applicable, we still have citizens, states and a Federal government dont we? -Just because one part of the Constitution is debatable does not mean we have to remove the entirety of the Constitution. Don't be illogical.Impact is the harmful effects of democracy. -What harmful effects? You've failed to show any actual effects.Democracy is as harmful now as it was in the 1770s." - What harmful effects?"Refutations:Contention 1: Distorts our democratic processWe are a republic not a democracy. --- We are a Democratic Republic.a) Imbalance of power voting was purposefully placed to protect small states. --- It also damages small states.b) Distortion must not be solved since it will result in the loss of small states influence in presidential elections." ---- Instead of prioritizing Iowa and New Hampshire above all else, let's give each state a porportional voice."Contention2: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the public as a whole.That is the purpose of a Republic.99% of electors vote accordingly to how they pledged. (U.S. Electoral College FAQ's)a) If it aint broke dont fix it. Faithless electors have never decided an election."Why should we even take the chance of giving 3 people the power to change the outcome of a presidential election?"Contention 3: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation.I agree that this is a negative impact of the electoral college; however, as stated in my second contention, direct popular vote wouldn't be able to fix this problem either which he admits to be saying "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Therefore, his third contention is void."Yes, the Electoral College has integral flaws, that is exactly why we must switch to the Direct popular vote. My third contention is not void in this manner. Direct Popular Vote, as I've said many many times, would fix this problem. It would make candidates speak to the nation, not just Iowa or New Hampshire. Let's give every state a porportional voice, vote Pro. I'll be honest, I did my best to follow my opponents rebuttals but they were rather twisted and difficult to follow.Regardless, I urge a vote in the affirmative.