In the matter of the electoral college, being either abolished or kept intact, i take the side of keeping it intact for the reason that even though you are technically not voting for the president, but for a slate of delegates that are loyal to the candidate, it is in fact very useful. First, the number of electoral votes are given by the population of each state, and second, there is a near certanty of a outcome because of the winner take all system.

To begin with, the electoral college is based on the population of the state, meaning, that the bigger the state population, the more electoral college represantitives they get. So, if California has the biggest population in the U.S, and the district of Columbia has the smallest, then it isn't fair that they get the same number of votes, either small nor large, because there are more people in one state then the other. Although people say that the electoral college is a bad thing, and think that it is an anarchism, it is not, for it is one of the things that keep our counntry in near perfect shape.

Another reason that the Electoral College should be kept, is that there is a near certainty of a outcome. Take the 2012 election between Obama and Romney, where Obama recieved 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to the 51.3% populatrity vote cast to him. People argue that the electora l college has a diaster factor, or that the system allows for much more to happen that doesn't. Thats the problem. It hasn't happened and most likely won't happen, because if were going to happen then it would've already happened and Congress wouldve revised it and made sure that it didnt happen or that it could be delayed so that a solution was made possible, and that the election went as continued.

To conclude, even though the electoral college has many flaws that are yet to be shown and or fixed, it is the only way we have to elect presidents, and thats how it should be, because you can't have a perfect thing without flaws that have to be fixed