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

To start off, a few clarifications: 1) I agree that the United States is a democratic republic. THIS MAKES IT A REPUBLIC. Democratic is just an adjective describing Republic. For example, happy bread. Just because a piece of bread is happy doesn't mean that it isnt still bread, it is just happy bread. 2) The Senate DOES have to do with the Electoral College because it protects state rights, as does the Electoral College. 3) Popular vote gives porportional voice to INDIVIDUALS not STATES. The voice of the smaller states with direct popular would NOT be porpotional to the larger states. 4) PRO- "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. " However, this is not true. When I attack your third contention by saying that direct popular vote will force candidates to ignore states too, your defense is that the Electoral College has the flaw of ignored states by candidates, NOT that direct popular vote fixes the problem. 5) The Electoral College and Direct Popular Vote are similar in regards to the fact that neither of them solves the problem of ignored states within campaigns. And since Pro had the burden of proof to say that direct popular vote solves the problems of the Electoral College, this point goes to the negative. 6) Distortion doesn't need to be fixed if it is put there PURPOSEFULLY to protect small states. 7) My opponent asked me what the harmful effects were of democracy, and that I failed to show any actual effects. Therefore, I will list all the harmful effects that I have shown throughout the entire debate. "Democracy itself is not a stable form of government, instead it is the gradual transition from a limited government to the unlimited rule of an oligarchy. " "the founders had good reason to look upon democracy with contempt because they knew the democracy of the early Greek city-states produced some of the wildest excesses of government imaginable. In every case they ended up with mob rule, then anarchy and finally tyranny under an oligarchy. " 8) Small states aren't prioritized through the Electoral College, they are made equal to the larger states through the Electoral College. I dont see how equality of states is a bad thing. 9) Faithless electors have never decided an election. Therefore, why "fix" a problem that has never occured before and statistically probably never will. 10) This seems to be one of the more important points of the debate which is why I will answer it again even though I already answered it in #4. I agree that the Electoral College has flaws in regards to some states aren't recognized during campaigns. However, in order for this point to be awarded it to Pro, Pro must prove that direct popular vote can solve this problem. It doesnt though, because as I proved in my second contention, with direct popular vote, the candidates will only focus on larger states, ignoring the smaller states. Bob Nutting of the Maine House Republicans affirms this by saying, "In the election of 2008, because all votes in the electoral college are important, Maine saw candidates and their surrogates. If the criteria for winning were the popular vote, they would have camped out in California, Texas, New York, Florida and other populous states. " Since Pro started the debate, I would like it if he only used the final half of the fifth round to say a couple closing sentences at most. Thank you I can only see a negative ballot for today's debate.