Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

I will rebut my opponent's contentions in this round. Then, he can rebut my contentions and then my rebuttals as well. I guess that is the advantage of going second.First, I will rebut my opponent's first contention. I would like to say that popular sentiment is not enough to change our system. Here is a good and informative quote from Senator James Eastland that explains this. "How, it will be asked, could an idea which enjoys such widespread popular support be so dangerous? The answer, we believe, is to be found in an examination of certain influences which have attended the current debate over electoral reform. It must be acknowledged, first, that direct election is a simple and easily communicable idea. That fact alone may account for its great popularity and for the widespread and uncritical support it has had from the communications media. Simplicity in the governance of human affairs, however, is not always a virtue; nor is it the distinguishing characteristic of this 200-year-old Republic which seeks to secure the blessings of liberty for 200 millions of people. Human hopes and fears are complex; politics is complex; and the Constitution is complex. Still, simplicity has its charms, and not the least of them is the capacity to conceal danger." Next, my opponents says that one man one vote is the way to go. But one man, one vote was not the founders' intention. As I said before, the cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. Nothing could be clearer in the Framer's thought than their rejection of a merely numerical concept of representative government. If the Constitution stands for nothing else, it stands for the idea that mere numbers have no capacity to make legitimate that which is otherwise-illegitimate-whether those number be 51 or 90 percent of the whole. All the unique features of the Constitution are explicit departures from simple majoritarianism. This is true of the federal system, which, among other things, prevents the less populous States from being engulfed by the more populous states; this is true of bicameralism, which divides legislative responsibilities between House and Senate on grounds other than those of population; this is true of the separation of powers, whereby, among other things, great power is invested in a nonelective judiciary; and this is true of the electoral college, which incorporates the Federal principle and grants to each State, however small, a minimum weight of three electoral votes.His second contention is that the electoral college was designed in a different time. But, still, the electoral college has worked tremendously well for the last two hundred years. As I have explained in my contentions, the Pro has a huge burden to explain why a direct popular vote is better than the electoral college. No system is perfect. I have also explained why the electoral college is good and should be kept, while the direct vote is flawed in my contentions. I will wait and see how my opponent rebuts.I also urge the voters to keep in mind of my contentions including voter fraud, recount problems, moderate ideas prevailing, and more.