Senator, I believe that voting for the president of the United States should be based off of the popular vote by the people. Not the Electoral College. Voting by the Electoral College does not allow the people to have the final say. It altimately gives the elector the choice. "The 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century" (Bradford Plumer, paragraph 14), it was a disaster factor. The electory went against the will of the people and voted the opposite of what they said. Whose to say something like this can't happen again soon?

Some people say that the Electoral College is a good thing. It allows a certainty of outcome and is a fair, reasonable way to vote for a president. But it is based off of trust, that the elector won't betray the canidate's party and people. Trust. Are you really going to put your vote for the president of your country in someone eles hand based off of trust?

Having an elector represent your state based off of population is ridiculous. One elector representing 500,000 people in Wyoming. Wouldn't you sleep better at night if you could represent yourself instead of someone representing you and thousands of other people all at once.

In 2000, a canidate had more popular votes, and less electoral votes and lost! Even though the people had more votes! How do you feel knowing that your vote doesn't even count? "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential canidate"(the Office of the Federal Register,paragraph 7). Because of this system, canidates will not spend time in certain states they know they have no chance in winning in. "During the 2000 campaign seventeen states didn't see the canidates at all"(Bradford Plumer, paragraph 13)

Next time you go into that voting booth, remember that you're not voting for a president, you're voting and are supposed to trust an elector.