Abolish the Electoral College

I stand in favor of the electoral college. My opponent rests his entire case on this one presumption: that the electoral college was set up to prevent citizens from voting for candidates whom they did not know. In doing this he starts off with two errors: he both misinterprets the Founders' intentions for the electoral college and tacitly agrees that if I show that abolishing the E.C. doesn't fix his fictitious problem, then I win. First, the E.C. was not instituted to prevent voters from choosing candidates whom they know little about. He never shows how an indirect vote is so beneficial to voter education. In fact, the E.C. was instituted to level out the playing field. With each state being given its number of representatives in both houses combined as the number of electors, the electoral college actually increases the clout given to smaller states to value their equality as a state to narrow out the advantage in equal citizens which larger states enjoy. This same principle is the foundation of the legislative branch, therefore to attack the electoral college is to attack the entire U.S. federal system. His contention one claims that the E.C. limits a citizen's access to campaign media and attention. He gives no warrant for this claim. He may try to say that a candidate would campaign more in swing states than in others, so we can group this with his second contention. However, this contention doesn't speak to the issue. Candidates may direct their campaigns at specific groups anyway because of race, gender, economic concerns, etc. the government need not abolish the foundation of the presidential system because of something as arbitrary as where a candidate chooses to spend his money. This is a democracy: it's his prerogative! His third contention that faithless electors misrepresent voters ignores all the facets of the issue. He himself states that the states are allowed to choose their electors as they will; this includes mandatory voting. We don't need to abolish the E.C. in order to fix this problem, so this contention actually works for me because we see that we can reform the electoral process without abolishing the E.C. entirely. We can also tie his fourth contention into his same argument: voters can still be represented without having to abolish the system. Also, he cannot say that the E.C. unfairly assigns electors because he either a) attacks the delegate cap in the House of Representatives and thereby the entire federal government, or b) must refer to the original constitution which bases these districts so as to be perfectly proportional to the population. This puts him in a double bind and he cannot be right either way. Once again, because he does not elucidate or warrant his contentions, we must group his fifth contention with his claims in the third and fourth contentions about misrepresentation by faithless electors and indirect democracy. If he attacks indirect democracy, then once again he attacks the entire US federal system. Note here that my opponent says merely that his contentions show the E.C. to be unnecessary. However, he must prove that there are actual reasons why such a total overhaul of our system is good, not why there is no reason against it. Therefore even if we were to hypothetically call his contentions valid, I still win because I show that there are good reasons against his proposition. Abolition of the electoral college would disrupt our entire electoral season. It would also be prone to the political machinations of whichever party were in the majority at the time as they would vote not as much for the good of the country as for the best interest of their party.