Dear Senator,

The Electoral College is unfair to not only the state but everyone in the country. If only a few people are allowed to vote as electoral and then the rest is individual whats the point of having both? It does not make sense for the fact that the electoral votes are more imporatnat then the peoples votes. Its not fair because maybe the person who received more individual votes would be a more better president than the person with more eletoral votes. The Electoral College should be changed and who ever wins by the most popular vote should be president because that person may be better off.

To start off with, the electoral college shoudl be changed because in soure 2: " The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenes of the system are wrong" the author Bradford Plumer states "voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." (paragraph 10). What Plumer is saying is that the people who vote dont vote for the president, but for the people hwo come with him. Even though it should be the president you should be voting for. He does control our country and our future of what might happen. So why should the electoral college be voting for the slate of electors? Also in source 1: "What is the Electoral College" the author statea "election of the President by vote in congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens." (paragraph 1). The author is saying that the candidates have electoral votes and individual votes. Why have both though? Shouldnt a citizens vote matter more than a electoral because we know who might be best for us? The electoral college probaly doesnt even listen to the canidate, only their electors slate which is not fair. It should be the canidate who seems to be best for us instead of who works best for the president.

Also, shouldnt the person who wins by the most popular vote be president? In source 2: "The Indefesnsible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" it states "Al gore received more idividual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electorl votes to Gore's 266." Plumber is stating the fact that even though Gore won buy individual votes, Bush still became president because of his electoral votes. This is completely unfair though because Gore had more of the countries attention than Bush since he won by more votes. Bush only got the attention of the Electoral College because of the elector slate he had. Isnt that wha the electoral college looks at? The electoral slate? How about the public, they know what is best for their country and if the person with the most individual votes is it, then let it be it. Furthermore, in source 1:"What Is the Electoral College" the authore states "Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all the electors to the winning president." (paragraph 7). This is unfair because the candidates dont actually spend time in states they know they wont have a chance of winning in, but shouldnt all votes count? They never know if that state wants to pick them so why not show them who you are? In 2000, the candidates doing the campaign didnt send it to seventeen states. They didnt send it to Rhode Island and South Carolina including voters in 15 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad. Now thats not fair because everyone vote should count. If a person doesnt get to see then they wont vote but the person with the most votes should win. So why think that no one would vote? You never know.

Although these reasons state that switching the electoral college is a good idea, there are some benefits of it being there. In source 3: "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president" the author Richard A. Posner states "The electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..."(paragraph 21).This states that despite the fact that not a lot of people like the electoral collage they help balance the votes of the states and help continue the rights of the Constitution. This helps with th popular vote of the states and gets the most attention than smaller states. On the other hand, even though the electoral college evens the votes of the oublic, what if they choose the other candidate then the one that the public chose? It wouldnt be fair not only to the state but the other people who choose that candidate and the candidate him or herself.

Furthermore, the Electoral Collage should be switched so that the candidate with the most popular vote wins instead of the candidate with the most electoral vote. They should win because the person who has the most votes is better off with the public.

Sincerely,

Fellow Citizen