Dear Senator Im writing you this letter to let you know that I argue with you of keeping the Electoral College or changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as acompromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by popular vote of quilified citizens. Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation, one for each member in the House of Representatives plus  two for your Senators. The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state's electors when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's electors. The Certificate of Ascertainment also declares the winning presidential candidate in your state and shows which electors will represent your state at the meeting of the electors in December of the election year. Your state's Certificates of Ascertainments are sent to the Congress and the National Archives as part of the official records of the presidential election. At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states the know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on thje tight  races in the "swing" sates. During the 2000 camaign, seventeen states din't see the candidates at all, inckuding Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters inn 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it. The electoral College requires a presindential candidates 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 Rommey was in the South, has no incentive to campaing heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a succesful president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised, to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president.