Senator,

The Electoral Eollege seems highly unfair to the people. The winner, may not even be the majority vote. Perhaps a president received a majority of the votes, but the people then have to rely on electors to vote for them. That vote may not be what the people really wanted.

When it is time for elections, small states have a disadvantage on having a big part in the president's election. A president may win over five smaller states, and yet the other could win over California and still have more electoral votes. Larger states get more attention than smaller states. This is unfair. Some voters feel trapped because they know their vote won't effect the state ruling. Voters lose incentive.

Voters in presidential elections tend to want to be heard and feel as if their vote matters so they can express their political preferences. With electoral college votes, they feel the vote is unfair and they are relying on a few people and hoping they vote for the voters candidate. The people feel as if it's kind of like gmabling. In swing states, people have an advantage there. The "winner-take-all" method induces the candidates to pay more attention to those states. The candidates will campaign there more often and gain more and more attention from the swing state voters. Other states do not like this because they get less attention and the votes in swing states are more thoughtful than one-sided states.

The Electoral College votes, seem not-so-democtratic. It is the electors who actually end up electing the president...not the people. Anyways, this