Dear State Senator,

Every four years, the time rolls around to elect a new president of the United States. Surprisingly, the president is actually not elected by popular vote. Instead we have something called the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a board of electors who vote directly for the President. In source 1, paragraph 1, the Office of the Federal Register informs us that "The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress." Seems unfair doesn't it? The Electoral College needs to be eliminated because of the risk of a tie and the unfairness to voters.

Although a tie seems unlikely, we have had some very close calls in history. In source 3, paragraph 18, Posner reveals that "A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes-538-is an even number..." If there was a tie, the election would be given to the House of Representatives to decide, in which each state gets one vote. In source 2, paragraph 12, Plumer shares that "Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyonming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters." So, in the case of a tie, the outcome would be largely favoring small states over big ones.

The next reason why the Electoral College needs to be eliminated is because of the unfairness to voters. In source 2, paragraph 9, Plumer tells "...according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." This is an example of why the electoral college is unfair. The majority of the people voted for Al Gore, but he still lost he election because of the votes in the electoral college. This is stated again in source 3, paragraph 16 by Posner-"...however, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote."

Nevertheless, I do recognize that the electoral college does have some benefits to it. For example, the electoral college prevents the problem of neither party recieving the majority of votes. In source 3, paragraph 22, Posner explains "...Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent purality of the popular votes..." Another benefit of the electoral college is the winner-take-all method. This causes candidates to focus their efforts on the toss-up states; voters in these states are more likely to pay close attention and make the most thoughtful decisions about who is the best leader of our country.

The best choice to ensure the future sucess of the United States is to get rid of the electoral college. Even though it does have some benefits, the cons out weigh the pros. This system is unfair and old, and the majority of the people have agreed that it needs to go.

Sincerely,

Maggie Lyons