The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of the popular vote/run-off system

"The Electoral System in the U.S. has worked well for centuries, there needs to be an extremelycompelling reason to re-form our entire election process" Please define "has worked well"- because I fail to see the correlation between an opinion-based statement- "has worked well" - and the numerous arguments against I proposed. "there needs to be an extremelycompelling reason to re-form our entire election process" You mean like the fact that the president of the United States is decided by a few states? Or that whether or not your vote counts, and how much it counts for, varies based on where you happen to live? I made these arguments with the hopes that someone would refute them. I hope you do so. "since my Opponents position is advocating a change in the status quo, he must present a coherent voting system in replacement" Direct popular vote, if you get a majority of votes you win. It's very simple. The runoff system is slightly more intricate (and I think more fair and effective) and if no candidate wins a majority, the top 2 candidates have a runoff. "Luckily for me, my system (the electoral college) is already in effect, so I dont need to argue one" Just because your system is already in effect doesn't mean you don't have to defend it. You've come very close to, and/or committed the appeal to tradition fallacy several times. "The EC preserves a moderate government" This debate is about the President, not the government as a whole. "Without a two-party competition, it would almost be impossible to win a true sizable plurality of at least forty percent" So your argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it artifically inflates the number of votes for the two major candidates? Exclusion of otherwise very qualified candidates who were unable to gain the nomination of a major party is only another argument AGAINST the EC system, not in favor of it. Your argument also ignores the part where I mentioned a runoff system together with the popular vote. "Instead of the landslide victories requires by the electoral college" This is demonstrably and blatantly false. The Electoral College doesn't even require that a candidate gain the most votes, and a candidate can win as few as 13 states (if I remember correctly) and still win the election. "with DPV the winning candidate is whoever gains the most votes--even if that doesn't constitute a majority. " Wait, like in 1992 when Bill Clinton defeated Bush and Perot with a whopping *43%* of the vote? And in that same 1992 Election when the brilliant Electoral College system left Perot, who had more than half as many votes as Bush, with the same number of Electoral votes as me. "The Electoral College provides a good focus for candidates" Yes. The Swing states- because your vote can count for more than others, if you live in the right state! In 2004 *99% of the money spent, was spent in only 16 States* That's some focus right there! "Small states, rural areas, and sparsely populated regions would find themselves with little to no voice in presidential selection" Opposed to the 35 states in that situation now? Good argument. "In this scenario, a handful of states (or heavily populated cities) win, while the remaining states and less-populated areas suffer significantly" Incorrect. Under the DPV system, every single person's vote counts precisely the same. So while candidates may not campaign in rural Iowa, they care equally as much about Joe Farmer in Iowa as they do about Jeff Lawyer in New York. As the system is, only swing states matter. In fact, your argument is self-defeating. You say that "a handful of states win" whereas that is precisely the scenario the EC creates with swing states. "A candidate advocating the execution of abortionists, Christ in school books, secession of Texas (*cough* Rick Perry), War in Iran, and the Federal Marriage amendment would probably win in the South" Would probably? Evidence please? "However under DPV conservatives campaign to conservatives, and liberals to liberals" And thus we are left with the top candidates campaigning to the independent/centrist voters. The difference between the DPV and EC here? Under the EC candidates only care about moderates in a few swing states, whereas under the DPV they campaign to EVERY moderate voter across the nation. "With the EC candidates in order to win must take either a center-right or center-left platform or else they're lose" No it won't. Winning votes of ONLY liberals or ONLY conservatives will not be nearly enough votes to gain a majority. "the electoral college ensures that regional concerns are accounted for, preventing candidates from just going to areas with large populations " Regional concerns being accounted for is PRECISELY the reason we have the House and Senate. You seem to be confusing the legislative branch with the executive branch. The Senate is there to look out for the interests of the small states, not the office of the President. "Let's be honest, do we really believe that under a system of DPV states lke Wyoming or the Dakotas are going to have any say at all? Of course not" And this is the crux of the fallibility of this argument. People do not vote as members of the state. They vote as individuals. Under the DPV, EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL has their vote count equally. Under the EC they do not have their vote counted equally, oftentimes not at all. Every single voter in Wyoming has their vote count precisely the same as every single voter in California. One vote equals one vote. "A president so elected may be more likely to pursue national interests at a cost to state or regional concerns" We elect the president to take care of national interests, we elect senators (by direct popular vote by the way, as of the 17th amendment) to take care of state interests, and representatives to take care of regional interests. Why should we elect the NATIONAL leader by each STATE? We don't elect state leaders by county, do we? "If we want to base things just off of population like DPV will, then should we not follow that same line of reasoning and abolish the senate as well" This logic does not follow. How does changing the way we elect the president have anything to do with getting rid of the Senate? You're creating a strawman of my position. The Senate is there to protect the interest of small states. I don't think small states should get special treatment, nor do I think voters who happen to live in a state where voter turnout is close between two parties should get special treatment. I think one vote should equal one vote, that every single voter across the nation is guaranteed that their vote be counted, and be counted precisely the same. And I do hope in future posts you would be so kind as to address my argument directly instead of copy-pasting from past arguments or other websites.