Dear Senator, i am not in favor of keeping the Electoral College. I would much rather have the presidency based on the popular vote. With the Electoral College, voters aren't even voting for the presidential canidate, they are voting for a slate of voters. This slate of voters will then go put the number of electoral votes that the state has in. For example, in Florida, the voting slate is twenty-nine. So which ever canidate wins the popular vote in Florida, receives twenty-nine electoral votes. The popular vote method would take longer, because more votes would have to be counted and added, but I truely beleive it would be more effective.

In 2012, Obama received 61.7% of electoral votes but only 51.3% of popular. Either way he would have won, but the popular vote is more of what the actual citezens want. in 2000, Al Gore dominated the individual popular vote, but when the electoral votes were counted, Gore came up short with 266, wheras Bush had 271. So you can see that if the popular vote was what counted (as it should be), Gore would have won the election.

During the election campaign, some states may not even see the canidates. For example in the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the canidates. The reason behind this is because of "swing states". Canidates don't want to waste time in states that they have no chance of winning. Instead, they focus only on the tight runs in the "swing states". Voters in twenty-five of the largest media markets didn't see the first campaign ad during the whole election.

In conclusion, the Electoral College is over-rated, and somewhat inaccurate. The reason I say that it is somewhat inaccurate, is because the people are voting for the presidential canidate that they want to have in office. Instead, they are actually voting for votes. Sounds a little weird but it is true. In reality, the popular vote makes little difference, and that should change.