In 2000 when Al Gore got more indevidual votes then George W. Bush nationwide he did not win the election. It is because of the corrupt prosses of the Electoral College that he did not gain presidency. It is this among other things we must do away with the Electoral Collegeif we want to run a true democrocy.

There are many people who would argue that the Elecotal College should stay and be apart of how we elect our president. Richard A. Posner author of

Defence of the Electoral College claims the candidate for president must have a trans-rigional appeal (source 3 paragraph 18). This however is not true. According a map that shows the breakdown of the number of electoral votes each state gets he/she could very well just get the votes from two regions and win the election. Yes you could say that two regions are trans-rigional but this idea is based on  collection of states from each reagion. Not one or two. Ponser also asserts that, "...the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election"(paragraph 20). Here he is saying that only the Swinging States-such as Ohio Hawaii-would determine who the president is for the whole counrty. How is letting a handful of people decide who the presedent will be a reprsentation of the counrty as a whole? Short answer, its not. It would be foolish to put the choice for president into the hands of few, its like puting all our eggs into one basket and then throwing it off a  roof.

There are a numerus amount of things that are not good about the electoral college. Bradford Plumer from the foundation for National Progress and author of

Mother of Jones says that if there was to be a tie everything would be up to the House of Representitves(source two paragraph 12). That means each state gets one vote. One! The reresentitive from Wyoming-who have 500,000 voters-would have the same amount of power as the representitive from California-who has 35 million voters. This is in no way to run a country with fifty people representing about 250 million people. Plumer also states that the vorters can't always pick who their electors are (paragraph 10). While the electors cannot be someone in office, who is to say that they may say one thing about who they will vote for but infact they vote for someone eles? It has happend before. Every one should get one vote and that be that non of this winner takes all stuff.

Finally we get to the part about the District of Columbia or Washington D.C.. The Office of the Federal Register wrote an article on the Electoral College and it says that D.C. is given three electors and treated like a state(source 1 paragraph 4). In one way this could be a good thing but in this casse it is a bad thing. The District of Columia is not a state and holds many goverment officials. Infact many people don't live in D.C. they live in one of the  neighboring states. So why are we letting them have as much of a say as Vermount or Alaska or even one of the Dakostas?

To wrap this  all up the corrupt system in which we elect a group of people to do what we want is not a very effective way to run a counrty in stage four of the Demographic Transistional Stages. Although president George W. Bush was an adiquate president there is still unfair that Al Gore had not become our president when he hat the popular vote.