Changing the election to a vote of popularity is a great idea in my opinion. Citizens of the United States should be the people making the decision on who the President and Vice President should be. Congress would still have there need there vote of atleast two hundred and seventy member's, and the atleast %51 of the citizen's vote to pass it.

The electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for the slate of of electors, who in turn elect the president. After the presidential election, your governor prepares a "certificate of Ascertainment" listing all of the candidates who ran for president in your state along wit the names of their respective electors.

The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century. Consider the state legislature are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could aleays defy the will of the people.

There are five reasons for retaining the electoral college despite its lack of democratic pedigree:

1. Certainy of outcome 2. Evryone's president 3. Swing states 4. Big states 5. Avoid run-off elections

At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Becasue of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning. During the 2000 campaign, serventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and south Carolina, and oters in twenty five of the largest media markets. The electoral college is unfair and not right. I will have to agree with Bob Dole; "Abolish the electoral college!"