Dear senator

The Electoral College should be kept for the voting of the President. There are many reasons to support this conclusion. When the people vote for a President, they are actually voting for a slate of electors. This can be a good and bad thing. The good thing is that the Electoral College keeps balance. The bad part is that some Americans see that is unfair that they cannot vote for a President directly.

The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the politicial balance between small and large states (as it says in paragraph 21). This means that it makes sure the election is fair, not one person can be voted president just because they campaigned in a larger state (more people). The Electoral College also balances out the winners. They are the people who pick the clear winner when two candidates get tied. This happened to Nixon and Clinton. They both had a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes (as it says in paragraph 22). In these kind of situations it is good to have a backup plan (also known as the Electoral College).

Although the Electoral College is a helpful and fair way to vote, some Americans do not see it that way. In fact,over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now (as it says in paragraph 9). There reasoning is that they cannot vote directly. They vote for a slate of electors who then vote for the president. They see this as unfair and think that they should be able to vote for the president directly. Below the 14th paragraph, it  says "lost the presidency: In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more indivisual votes than George W. Bush nationwide,but Bush won the election,recieving 271 electoral votes to Gores 266."

Although this may seem unfair, the reality of it is that the Electoral College is just trying to keep the election for President fair. The Electoral College help to ensure that all of the candidates for President have a fair advantage. If the Electoral College wasnt there to balance out the votings, then the candidates could cheat. By cheat, this means that they could campaign in a bigger place of they could be from a different place than another president and have a unfair advantage because of the bigger population. If one president was from Texas and the other was from Florida, the candidate from Texas would have a unfair advantage because hes from a place with a bigger population. Why this is unfair is because if a candidate is from a area with a big population, the people in that area are most likely going to vote more towards that candidates side. In the last sentence of paragraph 21, it says "Alarge state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than small states."

In the end, there are always going to be downfalls. The Electoral College may pick the opposite candidate that the majority of the people want, this is true. Also, the people may feel that it is wrong to not go with the peoples opinion. If the Electoral College was not there to decide, there would be all forms of chaos. As it says 18-22, the candidates would have an unfair advantage. The situations on both ends have cons but the Electoral College staying solves more problems than creating them.