The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote/run-off system

Thanks, Pro. I'll refute your arguments in the next round. I debated this issue months ago, so I just copy/pasted my case from that previous round.I negate the resolution. Observation 1: The Electoral System in the U.S. has worked well for centuries, there needs to be an extremelycompelling reason to re-form our entire election process. We ought not reform legal precedent based off status quo unless we can conclude that A) The status quo has a problem, B) The problem will not go away by itself, C) changing the status quo will fix this problem, and D) the unintended problems from changing the status quo have been evaluated and considered of less significance than the current problem. If my Opponents arguments do not meet all these criteria, you vote Con by default. Observation two: The resolution calls for a comparitive analysis between DPV and Electoral Vote. Luckily for me, my system (the electoral college) is already in effect, so I dont need to argue one. However, since my Opponents position is advocating a change in the status quo, he must present a coherent voting system in replacement. This means, essentially, that if we want to affirm this resolution we need to have some framework of what our new voting system ought to be. (IE, are votes counted state by state still? Will minoirity presidents still go to the house of represntatives? Will all votes still be taken on the same day? ECT.)C1: The EC preserves a moderate government.Joy McAfee writes[1]: "Without a two-party competition, it would almost be impossible to win a true sizable plurality of at least forty percent. Compromises and concessions would vanish, and a candidate could represent all fifty states by winning the vote with a minimal plurality. True representation would cease to exist because it would not be needed to win. Instead, a minority party could represent a select group with large numbers and disregard the many important compromises needed to gain these votes under a two party system.”Instead of the landslide victories requires by the electoral college (Half of the electoral votes, plus one) with DPV the winning candidate is whoever gains the most votes--even if that doesn't constitute a majority. The minority president disadvantage is more likely to occur under DPV than the status quo. C2: The Electoral College provides a good focus for candidates. The Heritage Foundation writes[2]:" Democrats would almost certainly spend most of their time in the large population centers in California and New York. Republicans would campaign in the South and Midwest. Large cities would be focused on almost exclusively as the candidates seek to turn out as many votes as possible in "their" region of the country. Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection. In this scenario, a handful of states (or heavily populated cities) win, while the remaining states and less-populated areas suffer significantly”"Further, battle-ground states are actually a good thing. Consider that the reason those states are battle ground is because they are moderate. Campaigning in swing states forces candidates to have more center-ist platforms. A candidate advocating the execution of abortionists, Christ in school books, secession of Texas (*cough* Rick Perry), War in Iran, and the Federal Marriage amendment would probably win in the South; however they sure as hell wouldn't win in any other area of the country. (I know, the example is meant to be extreme. However under DPV conservatives campaign to conservatives, and liberals to liberals. The group polarization affect tells us that their policies would become more conservative/liberal when they're only around their own kind. EC forces candidates to appeal to moderates) With the EC candidates in order to win must take either a center-right or center-left platform or else they're lose. Recall also that there's a swing state in every region (Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa in the Midwest, Virginia, N.C. and Florida in the South, New Hampshire in New England and New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon in the West) so the electoral college ensures that regional concerns are accounted for, preventing candidates from just going to areas with large populations and pressing for every vote the can as happens in a direct popular vote scenario. C3: The Electoral College respects the states.DPV takes away the voice of the small states. Let's be honest, do we really believe that under a system of DPV states lke Wyoming or the Dakotas are going to have any say at all? Of course not. Here's what CATO institute has to say:“The sole practical effect of [direct election] will be to eliminate the States from their share in the political process. A president so elected may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns because state identities and considerations will no longer matter at all since the states will no longer exist so far as presidential elections go. Such a president might also be likely to pursue policies that enhance or enlarge the scope and power of the federal government.” While direct election may not have strong partisan effects, the further empowering of the federal government and a subsequent increase in its ambit would run counter to the founding aspirations for limited government and individual liberty”If we want to base things just off of population like DPV will, then should we not follow that same line of reasoning and abolish the senate as well? My Opponent needs to show us where the line ought to be drawn in regards to states rights if we abolish the elctoral college.Therefore, you should vote Con.Sources:1. McAfee, Joy. Cumberland Law Review 2. http://www.heritage.org...;3. http://www.cato.org...