Dear Senator,

Many people might agree that we shouldn't have an Electoral College at all, since most of the time it doesn't seem to work at all since of instead just voting on the person or candidate you would prefer, you instead vote for a slate of electors instead of the prefered candidate. This is not the case, however, and in fact, the Electoral College does seem to function. It can be proven in two simple reasons on why the Electoral College still works- certainty of outcome and the simple fact that it's everyone's president.

Foremost, the certainty of outcome can eaisly prove why the Electoral College still works. If we even do go to a system where we actually vote for popular vote, it would work as well as we do right now with the Electoral College, since there will be more disputes on popular vote than on the Electoral College. In Richard A. Posner's article on the defense for the Electoral College, he states in his first reason on why their would be much dispute over popular vote than on the Electoral College, and why it's less likely to happen on a Electoral College. He states "The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote." It's true, after all that the Electoral College's votes exceed over the popular votes. It could be also said that even if the government actually switches to popular vote, we know it would work since it does not exceed how on Electoral College votes go, which can be also seen as a simpler process of voting. On another note, in some cases, there can be ties between two candidates, as seen in 1992's Election between Nixon and Clinton on the popular vote. To summarize, the certainty of outcome is far greater in the Electoral College rather than the popular vote due to sheer number of votes in the Electoral College.

On a second note, the fact that the american people can vote enough that it's everyone's president is another reason on why the Electoral Colllege does work. The Electoral College works by havng the winner win trans-regionally rather than just focus on just on region that just favors them and only them. So instead of one region getting the candidate that prefers and focuses on only them, everyone can have a candidate that will focus largely on the nation's issues rather than just a specific part ot the country. For example, let's say that the largest population of people in a regon in the United States is the south (not saying it is or isn't, it's just an example). The south is mainly republican, so they will only vote for a republican that will focus majorly on the south. It is unfair for the rest of the regions, such as the Northeast, Middle, Pacific, and other regions of the United States, since they are mainly democratic (not really, it is used as an example) who would want focus on their region as well, too. In Bradford Plumers's article on why the Electoral College should be gone, he states that the electoral college is unfair to voters, since most candidates did not bother with the states they know they have no chance of winning at all. There could be an easy counter argument against this, since those states have probably already made up their minds on who to vote for, like a democratic candidate visiting Texas (where it's mainly republican), they know who Texas is going to vote for, there is no use in trying to convince them when they have already made up their minds, same goes if a republican candidate tries to convince the democratic California, they already know there is no use in reasoning and convincing when someone has already made up their mind. Also, someone can easily counterattack most of the arguments brought up in th Plumer's article, since this was written before the 2004 election, and it has been a decade already, plenty of things could've changed during the course if ten years in politics. In order to make a greater argument against the electoral college, one must have an updated list of facts in order to back it up, as certain things could've changed during a certain course of a decade. During the course of a decade, we seen how affective the electoral college was during the 2004 elections (people who disagreed during the 2004 elections and also agree that the electoral college doesn't work at all have to see the events that transpired before the 2004 elections and the promises made before it also), the 2008 elections (again, if the people disagreed on how the electoral college worked at that time, you would need to look at how people saw change during that time and the amount of younger citizens voting at that time), and the 2012 elections as well (also again, if disagreeing with the electoral college is reasonable at that time, you would need to look at how people reacted at that time and how different events before the election affected the outcome). In a final note, the electoral college is the vote on the people's president is true, and withholds it since it can focus on rather than on one specific region, but the nation as a whole.

In summarization, the electoral college should be kept due to the simple reasoning of certainty of outcome and the voting on the people's president. The reasoning of certainty of outcome can be applied here is due to the simple fact that the votes for the electoral college are far more greater than the votes for popular vote, same goes to the voting on the people's president, since it focuses on the entire nation rather that just one region of the country. Senator, we should be able to keep our electoral college, as it proves effective during the recent elections, and can certainly prove itself useful and reliable during the next elections to come.