While many may argue for it, the Electoral College has proved to be an obselete way of electing the President. It is, essentially, an indirect way for voters to choose their candidates, by voting for electors whose loyalty is not guaranteed. The Electoral College vote can override the popular vote, as seen in the 2000 Presidential Election. Some say that the Electoral College is a system worth keeping, because it provides a certain outcome and avoids run-off elections, yet these arguments are founded on little reason.

Undoubtedly outdated, this system is a catastrophe in the works, the 2000 election only a glimpse of the chaos that could result from the Electoral College. The disaster factor is a strong argument against the Electoral College. Consider 1960, when Louisiana segregationists came close to replacing Democratic electors with ones who wouldn't support Kennedy (11). Also along those lines, electors are bound by nothing but obligation to vote for the candidate of their party, and sometimes change their decision upon voting. Even if it only happens occassionally, it is yet another fault in this system.

Not only is the Electoral College irrational, it is also simply unfair. Each state can only cast a single vote, so the one representative in Wyoming, who represents only 500 thousand, would have as much say as California's 55 representatives, who represent 35 million voters (12). Other sources say a tie would be unlikely. However, in 1979 in Ohio, it would have only taken a few thousand voters to vote the other way (12). Because of the "winner-take-all" system, certain states are left untouched by candidates who know they won't win them. In 2000, certain states didn't even see the candidates, and didn't air campaign ads, denying voters of a chance to further favor or unfavor them (13).

It is simple, the Electoral College system is a turn-off for many voters, especially after the incident in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. Voters can be discouraged if they have no hope of carrying their state, like Democrats in Texas, or Republicans in Cali (23). Assuming that "Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election (23)" is rather incorrect. Single votes could absolutely sway an election, as mentioned earlier. Relying on the popular vote may make a tie more likely, but it would free voters from an obselete and untrustworthy system. Over 60 percent of voters oppose the Electoral College (9) which is enough to bring attention to these facts and, hopefully, address them before another controversial occurance.

The evidence is all layed out, mishaps and near-mishaps, an impending catastrophe all too possible for comfort, unfair to potential voters. The Electoral College doesn't deserve its defenders. 2000 proved it, the voters have spoken up, and it is indisputably irrational to continue to rely on it. The system has been around for a while, and it will stay in place for the next few years, most likely. However, because of the light now being shined on its faults, it could have a chance to be reformed for the better.