A president election is great but, there are some difficulties along the way of deciding who will be able to vote. People are asking themselves whether or not they should keep the electorial vote or get rid of it and have a popular voting method. To me, the popular voting method is reasonable. I believe that you shiould get rid of the electorial collage method and change it to the popular voting method because its fair to the voters, YOU are able to vote for the president of your choice, and because of the winner-take-all system. You need to think about everyone in the all the states not just electing your president. Your people need to agree with the choice that has been made.

The electorial collage should be changed to the popular voting method because it is unfair to the voters. Eeveryone should have a say in what goes on where ever it is that they live. We the people make up the government. Who draws the line that states whether or not you are allowed to vote. We do! Therefore we should be able to decied ourselves who can be our president to the United States of America. It is niot fair that we need to elect others to have our submission be made. Even when we tell our electors who we choose, they might turn arouhd and vote for the other person. In

Source 2 "The indefensible electorial college : why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"

backs up my response when stating,"In the same vein, 'faithless' electors have ocasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please...". That to me my friend, is not fair at all.

With the popular voting method you are able to choose the president of your choice, not the president's electors. In doing this you are having a fair vote in the election with everyone who is eligable to vote, voting whomever they please. If you vote for your own president of your choice there will not be any elector deciding for you if they do not like what you have elected. We need to have a say in what we want. I mean if we want someone to be watching over us, and deciding what to do, we want someone who everyine agrees on. Just a few hundred poeoplpe choosing for you is nothing compared to approximatley more than a million people choosing for themselves. In

Source 2 "The indefensible electorial college : why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"

it says that the electors can always defy the will of the people. In my case I believe that no one would want that. I mean, would you want that?

Another thing that is unfair in the election is the winner-take-all system in each state. People don't usually spend time in states they know the don't have a chance at winning. Who would? these states only focus on the tight races in the "swing" states. Sometime around the 2000 campaign, apporximately 17 states didn't at all see those candidates. Even when there were voters in states that had 25 of the largest media markets, they were not able to see not even one ad from the campaign. This is being said in

Source 2 "The indefensible electorial college : why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong by Bradford Plumer"

For my conclusion this proves that there are many difficulties along the way of an election, regarding the votes and voters. With this letter being written, people should not wonder whether or not the electoral college should be abolished, and go with the popluar voting method. You shouldn't be thinking about just a couple of people, but of a whole nation and deciding who is worthy enough in our eyes to lead us to more victories with the popular voting method.