Dear Florida Senator,

I can't help but notice the controversy regarding the Electoral College and its role in electing the President of the United States. While most argue that the Electoral College is a violation of freedom, I strongly believe that the Electoral College premotes equality for the candidates and the people.

By using the Electoral College system, we create an equal playing field for the candidates. For example, The Electoral College system serves as "checks-and-balances." In the words of the Office of the Federal Register in "What Is the Electoral College?": "The founding fathers established [The Electoral College] as a compromise between Congress and election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens," (Office of the Federal Register 1). This system of voting balances the voice of the people with the voice of Congress. Opposers might say that our votes don't even matter due to the fact that the popular vote doesn't directly determine our nation's President. This is far from reality, because the popular vote is vital to the Electoral College. The Office of the Federal Register writes that "most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate," (Office of the Federal Register 7). This means that the popular vote does determine - for most states anyway - whether or not the candidate recieves all of the electoral votes for that particular state.

Not only does the Electoral College ensure equality for the candidates, but for the people as well. For example, in "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong," Bradford Plumer whines about how, "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters," going on to say that, "Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states," (Plumer 13). However, Richard A. Posner makes a fair point: "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president...[If a candidate with only regional appeal becomes President] the residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised - to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president," (Posner 19). Moreover, Posner also writes that "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign - to really listen to the competing candidates - knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average...and the most thoughtful votes should be the ones to decide the election," (Posner 20).

Overall, the Electoral College is a symbol of our freedom of speech. I do hope you take my thoughts under consideration. The Electoral College may be called "outdated." But as the saying goes, "If it 'aint broke, don't fix it."

Sincerely,

PROPER_NAME