Dear, Senator

The

Electoral college has been around for centuries and as time changes, things start to evolve and grow along with the time period.

Some things are meant to be changed according to the lifestyle of our people now. Hundreds of years back, the electoral college might have worked for the citizens living during that time. However, this is a new century and many people agree with the fact that the electoral college is out dated and we need to change to the election by popular vote. Firstly, because the people are putting their vote into the hands of a person whom they might not even consider the votes of their state's people . Also, the electoral college causes many issues duing the voting period.

To start off, The electoral college is a huge risk that the state's people must take each year.

You never know whether or not your electors will suddenly change their mind and vote for a candidate that you personally didn't want. In the article "The indefensible electoral college: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" Bradford Plumer states "Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get cofused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes." (Plumer Paragraph 10) What the author is explaining is that during the presidential election, once you vote on your selection for the next president and you give your vote to the state electors you never know if they might change their mind or get scared and choose the incorrect candidate. For example, you choose on Barack Obama for president and you give your vote to the state electors and when it's time to vote... they decide to switch and choose

HILARY CLINTON!

Many of the citizens who voted for Barack Obama are now outraged by the thought of their state electors doing such a thing.

If we had elections by popular vote we would be able to choose whom we specifically want for our President and there wouldn't be so much tension between people.

Furthermore, the article "The indefensible electoral college: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system ae wrong" Bradford explains "Back in 1960, Segregationists in the Louisinna legislaure nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic electors with new electors whoo would oppose John F. Kennedy." This quote from the article is saying that the electors could easily manipulate you and change their votes in order to get what they want, forgetting about all the other votes of the people back home waiting for the news that their selection has won the presidency.

The elecoral college completely demolishes the purpose of the people's vote.

Additionally, electoral colleges should be abolished because not everyone feels as strongly about it as they did hundreds of years ago when the process first came about. What had started out as a good idea has slowly turned into a unpredictable disaster. From time to time,

People would be let down when they find out that  the candidate they had chosen didn't win the election, Why? because their state electors decided that it was okay for them to simply go against everyone else and be selfish by choosing their own candidate for presidency.

Bradford proves this by explaining "...'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please..." (Plumer Paragraph 11) On multiple occasions voters have done exactly that, choosing someone completely different than whom they were supposed to. Many members of the party get angry with such childish behavior because it's selfish, uncalled for, and just disrespectful to go about ignoring the one major duty they had to cast a vote for their selected candidate. The article "In defense of the electoral college: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president" Richard A. Posner exclaims "The electoral college is widely regarded as a anachronism, a non-democratic method of selecting a president that ought to be [overruled] by declaring the candidate who recieves the most popular votes the winner." (Posner Paragraph 15) What the author is explaining is that the electoral college is an old custom and it's time that it was changed to something new like the election by popular vote.

Time has changed, an so has the political veiws. The election by popular vote is a better opportunity because the state's people get to vote on exactly who they want without any major risks to deal with later on. Also, the election by popular vote is a simple and easier way of electing president.

On the other hand, there are very few reasons that are pointing towards the electoral college being a good idea. For example,

The electoral college has a even number of votes which make it easier to have a more predictable outcome of who might win the election. Although, not everyone might get the candidate that they had hoped for originally. The electoral college also comes along with the "Winner-take-all" method in which the awarding electoral votes induces the candidates running for the presidency.

However, this is only based on the candidate that has the most popular votes.

There are various reasons to consider the electoral college but many of them are followed by an overload of reasons

NOT

to keep the electoral college in use.

Lastly, the election by popular vote should be used instead of the electoral college. The electoral college comes along with many complications and difficulties unlike the election by popular vote it has a simple and easier way of choosing who you want in the next presidency. Many people feel that you should change over to the election by popular vote to benefit all of the state's people so that they can have a more acurrate estimation of who they  might have as their new president.

According to Bradford, the electoral college is "...Unfair, outdated, and irrational." (Plumer paragraph 14) It's about time we got rid of it and changed the way we elected our new president.