Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote

Con's Contention One: Yes I understand the definition of "deliberate" democracy. I fail to understand how having an Electoral College increases "deliberate" democracy. There is absolutely no evidence placed in this. How does the Electoral College encourage more "informed" voters. How do those two even correlate?? What I was saying was that if the people have less power in the political process, i.e. with the Electoral College, there would be less of an incentive to be more informed as the Electors in the Electoral College are the ones in charge of electing the president. If people have more power, then there would be an increase in deliberative democracy since they have more of a choice about who becomes president. The reason why an National Vote would be preferred is because with a National Vote, more people would be represented and the vote would be much more accurate. I still fail to understand how the "Electoral College" which gives the voters less power, encourages "deliberative democracy." I have not seen any evidence for this, just a bunch of quotes about people praising it, but no reasons why the Electoral College is an incentive for more informed voters. Con's Contention Two: The Electoral College protects against fraud First of all, the only thing Con says to "argue against" my claim that a close election is less likely since there would be large pools of data, is that it is wrong. Any evidence? Con doesn't acknowledge that it would be less likely that there would be fraud or that fraud wouldn't count as much since there would be huge pools of data."National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies."http://en.wikipedia.org...... All Con says is that the Electoral College prevents fraud, which doesn't really counteract my claim. If anything, other restrictions can be placed to prevent minority and majority fraud. It doesn't necessarily have to be with the Electoral College. I never strawmanned Con. Con stated that if a close election came under a National vote, recounts would be more difficult to handle. What I stated in rebuttal was that under a National Vote, it would be less likely that there would be a close election since there would be enormous pools of data that would differentiate greatly. Con's Contention Three: You can't rely on swing sates to "reflect" public's will. That's just speculation. The most accurate way to reflect the public will would be to actually focus on what most of them want instead of speculating in states that are at the political center. I fail to understand how this would be an "inaccurate" way to see what the majority wants. Ohio is much less populated and therefore less people would be affected by the choice of president. Not everyone will always be pleased with the President, but most will if we get a majority vote on it. In Conclusion The Electoral College simply isn't necessary. The Electoral College was established in the first place because the writers of the Constitution were Elitists and didn't want the "ignorant people" to choose the President because they were uneducated. But now people are much more educated therefore eliminating the need for the Elitists to choose who runs the country.The reason why in a National Vote, it would be a more "fair" election would be because it would accurately reflect the public's will. The Majority Vote=Most of what the people wantMost of what the people want=A Fair Election The Elitists should go The People should decidehttp://whowhatwhy.com......http://www.usnews.com......http://www.kpbs.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......