.

The Electoral College is a very contreversial topic when it comes to electing a president. Many people think it's a system that works fine, while others think it's a complete disaster. When it comes down to it, the Electoral College is a compromise between electing a president through congress and electing president by popular vote. In the past the Electoral College has caused problems in presidential elections and it can easily cause more problems that are much more severe than what we've seen in the past. America is all about democracy, so why don't the citizens get complete control by being able to elect their president directly?  It's about time that the government finds a system that works better and gets rid of the Electoral College once and for all.

The Elecotral College has many flaws, a major one being that voters don't actually vote for their president, they vote for electors, and the elctors are the ones who elect the president. You may ask yourself, "What's wrong with this? One way or another we're still choosing the candidate we want." While that is somewhat true, the system has many kinks that need to be fixed causing errors in the process. One example of this is the "winner takes all" rule.  An excerpt from "The Indefensible Electoral College" says "... the electoral college is unfair to voters. Becuase of the winner take all system in each state, candidiates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states". At a basic level, this means candidates will only focus on some states, and giving up on others. In fact, the same article also says "During the 2000 campaign 17 states didn't see the candidates at all..." The facts prove it it, the Electoral College is a flawed, and unfair system, and it needs to be dealt with.

Another huge problem with the Electoral College is called "the disaster factor". According to Bradford Plumer, " The American poeple should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse." Plumer then explains how in Louisiana the legislature almost replaced the democratic candidates with some who opposed John F. Kennedy so that the popular vote wouldn't go to him, but rather someone else. This is a fine example of how corrupt this system can become if someone actually manages to pull something like this off. Other problems like a state sending two slates of electors to congress, or a tie in the electoral vote can happen, and there are some solutions to these problems, but why even go through them when a new system can be created  altogether?

People like Richard A. Posner argue that we should keep the Electoral college. Posner believes that the Electoral College balances the weight between big and small states. The Electoral College gives big states less electoral votes and smaller states more to balance things out. I don't see this as balancing anything. Now the smaller states have an advantage over the bigger states, so you still have the same problem you began with. Posner also argues that voters in toss up states are more likely to pay attention to campaigns, but Plumer clearly contradicts this in his article. He states "  ... seventeen states didn't see the campaign at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad."  The proof is irrefutable, the Electoral College has it's loop holes which seem fairly easy to get through. The system is outdated, it's time for a new system to take its spot.

I stand my ground when I say the Electoral College should ber abolished. The people should have full control over the election of our president, and even if that's not possible, the system is very corrupt. While some still agrue that the Electoral College is working fine, the proof shows it isn't. It either needs to be renewed or replaced altogether.