Electoral college is a dictator, boss, or lottery! It's unfair. It is the duty and privledge of the people to select our government leader. We should choose based on our point of view. The second source conveys effective points to consider, such as, directly voting for the president and the disaster factor. It also informs us that, even though unlikely, there is possibility of a tie.

Directly voting for a president is an issue addressed in both source 2 and 3. They agree that technically, we're not really voting for a president. The second source tells us that when we vote, it is actually sent to the state elector, and it is they (electors) who vote for the president. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer voting directly over our system now. Even though source 3 gives us reasons to keep the electoral college, it will support us when we say we aren't actually voting for the president directly.

Source 2 gives us the "single best argument" against the elector college as what it refers to as the disaster factor. It uses the fiasco of 2000, the biggest election crisis in a century, as an example of why we are so lucky. The state legislatures were technically responsible for picking elctors and they didn't always have to listen or acknowledge the people's opinion/vote. It takes us further back by giving an example of segregationists back in 1960 where John F. Kennedy almost lost the popular vote of Louisiana when their legislature replaced Democratic electors with new ones that opposed him (Kennedy). What source 2 calls "faithless" electors, electors who dont believe that their candidate will win; hence faithless, have occasionly voted in favor of their choice, disregarding the decision of the people.

The third source gives us five reasons in favor of the electoral college method. Even though we don't directly vote, the party chooses the elctors and trust that they will select the voted nominee, and it ensures us that the trust is almost never decieved. Disputes over the outcome because of an Electoral College Vote is possible, but not as likely as the popular vote. The next reason given informs us that a region doesnt have enough electoral votes to win the election for the president they favor. "Swing States" is another reason. It refers to states that can be persuaded and aren't neccesarily entitled to a particular candidate, so they will really pay attention to what the cadidates have to say, their campaign. "Big states" is the fourth reason and is focused on population advatages. Meaning, a state with smaller population will have just as much impact on the election as one with a larger population, its equal. It is not neccessarily a good thing when the last reason says "The Electoral College avoids the problem of elctions in which no candidate recieves a majority of the votes cast". Wouldn't that raise the risk of a tie? Though, it is extremely unlikely that a single vote may decide the president and voters in these elections want to express their opinion and prefernece.

I am in favor of abolishment of the unfair, old-fashioned, and irrational electoral college method. Plus, reasons to keep this system arent as strong and factual as the reasons to abolish it.