The Electoral College vote is a somewhat a confusing process with the voter not voting for the president, but electors who elect the president. Many people think that this method is flawed becuase the people are not electing the president. On the hand people think that the Electoral vote keeps the race for presidency with a more clear outcome, than if they were elected by the popular vote. There are defiently two different arguments to this points with both sides involving good evidence.

There are many flaws that people bring up in regard to the electoral vote. One of these is that since the state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, the electors could easily defy the will of the people. The most obvious fact about the electoral vote is that you are not voting for the president, but for a group of electors who then vote for the president. This is also unfair to voters because the candidates don't spend time in states they know will not win. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states did not even see the candidates, and people in 25 of the largest media markets didn't see a single campaign ad. In turn the elctoral college is unfair and outdated.

Though there are plently of things wrong with the electoral college there are still plently of good arguments as to why we should keep it.  With the electoral college vote there is less of a chance of a dispute over the outcome thaan with the popular vote, though it happened in the 2000 election. The electoral can also make the race more fair, because a candidate with more regional appeal can not gain more electoral votes by campaigning heavily in that area. The electoral college also can help avoid run-off elections like Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992. Overally the Electoral College vote is a way of electing a president without actually electing a president, that should probabley be removed so the people have more of a say on who runs there country.