Abolish the Electoral College

Hello Pro. Thank you for defining the electoral college to our voters (I get the feeling that most people are pretty ignorant of the way our government works). I will rebut each of your claims in order, as well as adding my own argument. The fact that Wyoming has fewer people per electoral vote is true, but before condemning it, lets examine why. Each state gets two senators, regardless of population, and then a house of representatives member for approximately every 710,000 people. Each senator and house of reps member counts as an electoral vote. (The exception to these rules is DC. DC has no senators or representatives, but gets 3 electoral votes.) So, two of Wyoming's three votes are from the senators. This is true for all states. Senators have nothing to do with population, so two of those electoral votes are justified. Now lets look at the last vote. This vote is the population vote. True, Wyoming's population is only about 584,000 (Not enough for an electoral vote), but they still need a representative. They pay taxes, right? No taxation without representation. And the senators do not count as representation. So we give Wyoming a representative, which makes things unbalanced. But the alternative is to essentially throw out the votes of hundreds of thousands of people. For more about how this rule came about, go here- http://study.com... So, to your claim, "With the Electoral College, the value of a vote depends on what state a person lives in.", you're essentially saying we should ignore a hefty chunk of the nations population. I know you didn't mean this, but that's the only other alternative. You also say "Under the Electoral College, your vote is only valuable if you align with the majority of people from your state." This is true, but that is still a majority. Majority rules. If you have a problem with the majority, you can move to a place where you are part of the majority. Also, you are correct in saying that someone could win 78.2% of the popular vote and lose the electoral vote... but that's like saying "Maybe a rabid koala will fall out of a flying cherry picker and land on my head, mauling me and giving me AIDS." Is this technically possible? Yes. Will it happen? No. Also, Gore's "win" of the popular vote is generally considered to be a tie. The numbers were extremely close, and if you take into account those who didn't vote, either candidate could have won. And this is also a good time for me to point out that if Gore had won, he would have had half the population against him. Yes, electors are generally not legally bound to vote one way or another- but they never vote against the population, because they would get thrown out of office if they did. There are more than just legal consequences. So, I'm sure you're noticing, despite my defense, there are still some flaws in the electoral college system. This is true, and the electoral college is not a very good system. But it's the best one. The only alternative is a popular vote system, and this is worse. Let me give you an analogy. You've got twelve people running for president (Without the electoral college, this would be the case!) Here is the vote division- Person A- 8% of the vote Person B-10% of the vote Person C-9% of the vote Person D- 8%of the vote Person E-9% of the vote Person F- 9% of the vote Person G- 8%of the vote Person H- 7%of the vote Person I- 5% of the vote Person J- 9% of the vote Person K- 8% of the vote Person L- 9% of the vote So who wins? Person B? They got the bigger percentage of the vote- but they also had 90% of the population against them. With the electoral college, this scenario would never happen.