Many people feel that the president plays a very imperative role in the United States. He has much responsibility and an enormous influence on what this country stands for. So, surely, this president must be carefully sought out from the abundance of other candidates. It is quite contreversial as to what method is best for selecting them. Although an electoral college may appear as the right path, the countries interest unvariably lies with the popular vote because it is fair and unstressful unlike the electoral college.

Firstly, the electoral college is quite unfair. It is mentioned by Bradford Plumer in "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" that some of the states do not even get to see candidates under the electoral college system. Candidates don't even bother with the states that they don't have a chance of winning over. They focus all of their attention on swings states. This means that some states have to vote based on just what they have heard. These people could have heard rumors and now are voting under false impressions. They deserve their own fair share of information from the candidates themselves. Also, under the electoral college the people of this nation aren't even voting for their president. They are voting for the electors. All that they can do is hope that the person that they voted for votes in their favor (Plumer). There is no guarentee that they will, so people have little say in who is president. This is their country, they should be able to decide who does and doesn't govern it. It is mentioned that with the popular vote larger states get more attention than little ones (Posner). The popular vote may not be entirely fair to all states, but it most definitely is better than the electoral college. Even Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO agree that the electoral college should be abolished.

As if this wasn't enough to get rid of the electoral system, the popular vote is also much less stressful. First off, the there could be a tie. If there is a tie, the decision goes to the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is likely that the result of their voting will not be at the will of the people (Plumer). Isn't it just easier to have their load lightened and take the stress of thep possibility off thier back? Although the outcome of a tie is unlikely (Posner) it is still possible and causing unnecessary stress. Additionally, the electoral college results in the presence of the disaster factor (Plumer). If a repeat of the 2000 fiasco (the biggest election crisis in the past hundred years (Plumer)) is what America is looking for then by all means choose to stick with the electoral college.

In summation, it is prominent that the most potent option for this naiton is to elect the president of the United States by popular vote. Even though the electoral college does have some pros, the ultimate candidate is the popular vote as it ensures fairness and a virtually stressless voting process. Who doesn't want that?