Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

I'm going to respond to my opponents 3rd round, then explain why a Con vote is called for in this debate. Winner takes all is bad?My Opponent continualy argues that votes for the losing candidate are "wasted". I brought up a card attacking this argument, and she's made no response to it. She has shown no distinction between voting for a candidate and having them lose in your state, and voting for a candidate and having them lose nationwide. This is significant because as I've previously stated, winner takes all is how elections work and how they would continue to work under direct popular vote. Since it's the last round, she cannot explain this. So you can completely drop any offense coming off this point, because it isnt an attack on the EC---its an attack on democracy in general.Further, my Opponent argues:"Naturally, each vote in a state where the winner had a small margin would be more critical than in a state with a large winning margin" Wait, so you're saying that the vote of a moderate, level headed person in a swing state is more critical than the vote of a Bible-banging neocon in Texas, or a pacifist socialist in New York? Good, vote Con! We cant consider the "votes wasted" argument for all the reasons I've already stated.My Opponent further argues that close elections are less likely under DPV, so what? Further, I've already turned this argument and her only reply is that my source is "unreliable". K, my source linked a variety of historical sources supporting a fact of common knowledge; everyone knows that the Whites in the South suppressed the Black vote in the post-war period. Conversly, her source merely asserts things with no logical link. This you can see that it's merely an appeal to authority. Vote equalityPro absolutely ignores my satire laced but logical response to this. Extend it, and vote Con based off a dropped refutation. Pro argues that some states get "3-4 times the power" of other votes, yet does not ONCE explain the methodology, or any impact what-so-ever. I asked if we should abolish the senate for giving the small states "too much power" and my opponent does nothing but state that it's not a topical question. If we dont want small states to have a voice than we ought to abolish equal representation in the senate, that follows my opponents logic! Why should a voter in Wyoming get literally 30x+ the vote of someone in Texas? Recall how I argued that the EC requires candidates to gain an absolute majority in order to win, and the DPV would not. My Opponents only response is that the House would decide the winner under DPV if no one got a majority. I argued that the House would be biased and her ony response is that my system, the EC, has a similar failing. The problem is that there has been ONE election in the history of the United States where the House has had to decide, and that one was for all practical purposes a direct election! So such a problem is much more likely under DPV so the disadvantage is admittadly not totally unique, but still a burden on the affirmation. MoralityAgain my Opponent has continually argued for a criterion of morality, but has never once done anything other than assert that her position is more moral! No explanation what-so-ever as to why or how. She hasnt defended the morality of any of her points, so she loses because she hasn't met her own framework. Therefore you should default to Con.A. Battle-ground states are good!I argued that battle-ground states are good because they cause candidates to make a platform that is a represntation of the American people. My Opponent has completely dropped this argument, so extend it all and vote Con based off that. B. No impacts coming from the Pro caseI've stated numerous time that my opponents arguments are impactless. She has completely dropped these attacks, so extend them all. C. Most of her arguments have been turned. I turned the following arguments during this debate: Close elections, Battle-ground states, over-representation, and the framework. She's made absolutely response to ANY of these turns, so every single advantage and every single impact (although I didnt see any, you might) flow to the Con side in this debate.Therefore, I urge a Con ballot.