The Electoral College is a system that must be changed. It is a system that takes away the people's vote in a sense. As it originated from the Founding Fathers, it is as well an outdated system, that could have a drastic overhaul. The Electoral College could be thought of as ruining portions of this democracy, granting the people to vote for a president. There could be great error introduced to such a way of selecting people for such positions. Therefore, I stand vehemently on the side that the Electoral College must change, granting the people and the government a cleaner, more reliable form of election by three contentions: it removes the thought of there being an improper ratio of electoral votes to popular votes; it is too easy for fraud to occur in the system; and because of how irrational and unfair it is.

The first reason why the Electoral College must be changed in favor of a popular vote system is because of how there is such a margin of error introduced in its existence. The opposition may argue that a popular voting system may have equal, if not a greater chance of error, but that is very inaccurate. In a popular voting scenario, things are about as basic as possible. Election results are taken directly from the people of each state, and the results are then combined and compared, in turn selecting someone into office. In contrast, the Electoral College is far more complicated, resulting in more things to go wrong. For instance, a notable example is the 2000 election between Gore and Bush. In this scenario, Gore received a larger number of popular votes, as Bush won the Electoral College. The whole practice of the Electoral College introduces so many variables to the equation, that it would just be very irrational to use such a system.

Continuing, the next reason why the popular voting system should replace the Electoral College is by the chance of "fraud" in such a form of election. The members of the Electoral College could be anyone. Now, this may not be thought of as fraud, however it could as well be thought of as fraud of the system. These members of the College could potentially curve the results of an election. For instance, in the 2000 election, members did not stay true to the one candidate, resulting in the possibility for in improper ratio of votes between the Electoral College and the populus. A counter of this argument may be how often this sort of thing may occur. The 2000 election was the first election since 1888 that had a similar problem. However, this sort of thing should never occur. There should never be an occasion of a problem occuring in something as substantial as a presidential election.

My final contention is regarding how irrational and unfair the entire Electoral College is. In this, there is a type of winner-take-all system set in place. This means that, in most states, if a candidate wins the state, they take the Electoral College for the state. Because of this, candidates mainly focus on campaigning in states that they have a clear chance of winning. This is extremely unfair for many voters in the states that these candidates do not even visit. They would have no evidence of what to vote on in election. This could also change an election, with disastrous results. For example, in the 1976 election, a mere few thousand different votes in both Ohio and Hawaii could have led to a tie in the election. Ties are often fatal in the Electoral College system, as delegations in Congress determine a winner of the election. A counter to this claim may be how the winner-takes-all system encourages more campaigning in the toss-up states, where close attention is set upon the campaigning individuals. However, this still does not change the fact that other states are not receiving the proper amount of campaigning to prove a fair election.

In summation, the Electoral College must be changed in favor of a popular vote form of election by three previously stated contentions. First, it provides the chance for there to be disastrous results in an election. These results may consist of there being a tie, or an improper ratio of popular votes to electoral votes, as seen in the 2000 election. To continue, my second contention is regarding how there is a chance of corruptness and disagreement in an election. With the Electoral College in place, anybody could technically become part of the College, and there may be a dispute between what member is for what candidate and such. This could be very confusing for the voters. And finally, the entire system of the Electoral College is plainly unfair and irrational. This results in the election being unfair to certain states that did not receive proper campaigning for particular candidates, as it allows candidates to choose which states they would like to take part in campaigning with. In all, the Electoral College is a jumbled, confusing mess of election and governmentation.