Dear State Senator,

Once a year, people all over the United States of America gather to vote for the most powerful men in the country; our President and Vice President.  We should have the people of America be able to vote for who they want their president to be because the Electoral College has some major flaws and simply because people have their rights.  I believe that we should let the people be able to make their own choices.

The Electoral College has major flaws.  Something bad is bound to happen if we keep letting them make the people's decisions.  Source A in paragraph 12 states, "In 1968, a shift of just 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976 a tie would have occured if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way."  The election is literally only a few swing voters away from a catastrophe.  It would be hard to believe that the people of the United States would want to be embarrassed because we can't even choose a presidential leader correctly.  The other countries would take us as a joke; we would simply look like fools.  Another thing is, what would we do if there were a tie in the electoral vote.  Source B also in paragraph 12 says, "Perhaps the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote."  And with that being said, the election would be taken to the HOR (House of Representatives), where state delegations vote on the president.  And because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing only 500,000 voters, would have much to say as the 55 representatives from California, who represents 35 million.  That is the same population as Wyoming only times 70.  That is a tremendous difference in population.  Don't let our country plummit into bad election.  If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it.

Ever since our founding fathers have settled here in America and made the Decloration of Independence in the late 1700s, the Amendments, and everything that gives us the right to be free, the people have had the right to vote.  With the Electoral College, the people of America will not be able to freely use that right.  Source C says, "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters.  Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have a chance of winning, focusing only on the right races in the "swing" states."  Seventeen states didn't even see the candidates during the campaign in 2000.  Those states including Rhode Island and South Carolina.  Voters in the 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see not one, not two, but zero campaign ads.  Just as Source D states, "The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor.  The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the system allows for much worse."  The state legislatures are technically responsible for picking electors, and keep in mind that those electors possibly could defy the will of the people.  What if a state sends two state of electors to Congress?  It happened in 1960 with Hawaii and luckily VP Richard Nixon validated only his opponent's electors, but made sure to do so "without establishing a precedent."  What if it happened again?  Remember when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush?  Thank that to the electoral college.  In the 2000 U.S. presidential race, Al Gore recieved more individual votes that George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election recieving 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266.  This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency.  And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders.  But why?

First of all, Source E states, "So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small one does."  But the problem with this is is that it's simply unfair.  The smaller states should get just as much attention as the bigger states do.  This is like saying that on the baseball field, the bigger and stronger kids should be the ones picked first and be able to play but the smaller kids don't get to play.  It is not fair to the people in the smaller states like Wyoming, to be considered not as good as the state of California.  Also in paragraph 20 of Source F says, "They are the most thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have recieved the most information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election."  Once again, this statement is unfair.  This is favoritism.  This is saying that the better and bigger states should get all the attention just because they are more "thoughtful".  Once again, people deserve to have their rights so I say, let them vote.

People want to make their own decisions.  It's who we are as a person we want to be able to have responsibilities; we want to feel important.  With the electoral college we won't be able to get that feeling because we feel we aren't important enough to vote.  So it's official.  The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.  The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality.  And the arguments against direct elections are spurious at best.  Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind that we have now and there's a pretty good reason.  It's fair.  There's only one thing I have to say to you.  State Senator, please abolish the electoral college.

Sincerely,

PROPER_NAME