To whom it may concern,

The growing debate on whether or not the electorial college is necessary for when the country is voting for it's president. I am writing to argue that the electorial college is vitial to the presidential election process becuase it evens out the importance of all the states' votes, gives us a certainty of an outcome, and allows for toss-up states to vote for the best candiate.(Posner) It can be precieved that the electorial college is a non-democratic way of voting for the president. Although it may be seen like that, it is in fact favorable towards the people becuase the electors that you indirectly vote for are voting for the same candidate as you were. The electorial college has been around for decaades and has very few times caused a disruption in our country. Why should we eliminate a process that has worked for years and will continue to work for years to come?

The electorial college should be kept becuase it allows for the smaller states to compete against the larger states in terms of votes for the presidency. A state like California has a larger population than Alaska so in turn they would have more voters. The electorial college evens out the number of people per state that votes so the candidiate chosen is truly who the country wants as the president. A larger state would also get more attention than a smaller state due to it's size difference. Smaller states would get discouraged and soo only the larger and more populated areas would vote becuase they are getting the most attention from the candidates themselves.(Posner) Our country is made up of fifty states and all of them should have an equal imput in who runs our counrty.

Many of the time voters will vote becuase they want to have their party in the president's seat. There are some states that are called swing states that will vote for the president that they beileve will have the best impact on our country reguardless of thei party preference. The electorial college lets the voters from these toss up states vote for the best candidate becuase they are more likely to make thought out decisions because they listen to the candidates proposal and not their party.(Posner) With this in mind, that means that in the end the president chosen is thought to be truly the best winner for the presidency because the toss-up staes chose them over the other.

A dispute is possible when the outcome of the president's election is presented. However, it is likely that a dispute will happen if popular vote were to be the process of electing our president. There is very little chances that the electorial college will have a tie and there is the realisation that if popular voting were to happen, there would be more tied elections happenning. The country wants to have certainty when voting for their president and having the electorial college allows for every state to have a definite candidate and in turn the country can have a definite president by the end of the elections.

The electorial college is vitial when chosing the presdient becuase it gives us certainty in an outcome, evens out the importance of states votes, and gives swinger states an equal vote as well. We need to keep the electorial college and should it be eliminated, it could put our presidential elections at risk. For decades, the electorial college has worked and our founding fathers believed it was necessary. I implore to you thatkeeping the electorial college is the best for the president's elections.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen