I say we should keep the Electoral collage. The founding fathers established it in the constitution as a compromise between election of the president by a vote in congress & election of the president by popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral Collage consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the president. Under the 23rd amedment of the constitution, the district of columbia is allocated 3 electors & treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral Collage. But what's wrong w/ the Electoral Collage, under the electoral collage system, voters vote not for a president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. But in defense of the electoral collage: 5 reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the persident.1)

CERTAINTY OF OUTCOME

-A dispute over the outcome of an electoral collage vore is possible-it happend in 2000-but it's less likey than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning canidate's share of the electoral collage invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote.2)

EVERYONE'S PRESIDENT

-The electoral collage requires a presidental canidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region(south,northeast,etc.) Has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the south, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his pularity in states that he knows he will win. This is a desriable result because a canidate w/ only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president.3)

SWING STATES

-The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the canidates-as we saw in [2012's] election-to focus thier campagin efforts on the toss-up states....Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attation to he campagin-to really listen to the competing canidates-knowing that thet are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average (& for futher reason that thwy will have received the most information & attention from the canidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.4)

BIG STATES

-The electoral collage restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-appotionment of the senate decreed in the constituion....The popular vote was very close in florida [in 2012]; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by rhe same margin in wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things be equal, a large state gets more attention from presidntial candidates in as campagin than small sate does....5)

AVOID RUN-OFF ELECTIONS

-The electoral collage avoids the problem of elections in which no canidate recives a majority of the votes casts. For example, Nixon in 1968 & Clinton in 1992 bath had only 43% pularity of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the electoral collage (301 & 370 electoral votes,respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no canidate wins a majority of the votes casts; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by electoral collage, which invariably produces a clear winner....It can be argued that the electoral collage method of selecting the presindent may turn off potential voters voters for a canidate who has no hope for carrying their state-democrats in texas,for example,or republicans in california. Knowing thier vote will have no effect,they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote. But thats why i believe we should stay w/ the electoral collage because we have used this method for so long & yes there were a few hiccups here & there but not every system we use is perfect & for how long we've bee using this one i say why change now!?