Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential election

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. My Partner and I are on the pro side. Rep. William Delahunt said "The collision between the electoral vote and the popular vote is no longer just a historical curiosity. It's time to abolish the Electoral College and to count the votes of all Americans in presidential elections. .. This is about far more than any one candidate or the outcome of a particular election. At stake is public confidence in our electoral system. " Our points are 1. Electoral College goes against the one-person one-vote idea 2. Direct popular vote better represents the people. 3. The Electoral College is subject to the ideas of the few, rather than the public as a whole My first point is that the Electoral College goes against the one person one vote idea. The American Institute for Public party policy research found that one vote in Wyoming is worth four times as much as a single vote in California. In representing the people, we ought to represent all of them equally, one-person one-vote is the only right way to do this, which is why we need to favor direct popular vote over the Electoral College. My second point is that direct popular better represents the people. The people prefer direct popular vote to the Electoral College. Polls were conducted on each state that asked American voters whether they would prefer direct popular vote for presidential elections. In every single one of these state polls the majority of people wanted a direct popular vote in the presidential elections. Many of the states voted over 70% for direct popular vote, and states like Oklahoma voted up to 81%. Ironically, the smallest state that would be supposedly "counted out" in the direct popular vote, Wyoming voted for popular vote, 69% of the Wyoming citizens taking this poll favored popular vote. Another Gallup poll said that 64% of the nation wants a popular vote for presidential elections. It is obvious that the people want a direct popular vote for presidential elections and since our government is a government of the people, we need to give the people what we want; it is time to switch to direct popular vote. My third point is that The Electoral College is subject to the ideas of the few, rather than the public as a whole. The Electoral votes are taken not by the people, but by a set number of electors. The people vote for their candidate to essentially give the elector the desired candidate of the state. However, the problem that lies is that the electors can decide to go against popular opinion in favor of his candidate. These are called "faithless electors" as they can rule faithlessly against the people. Robert Bennett said that "faithless electors" control too much power, and can randomly and dramatically change the outcomes of an election at an impulse. Professor William G. Ross of Stamford University wrote "in past elections, so-called "faithless electors" cast innocently odd votes that provided an old-fashioned reminder of one of the old curiosities of the presidential selection process". In other words, faithless electors have defected against the will of the people to serve their own interests. With this all the people could decide. The candidates would still come here to get votes, as we will still be important.