Dear State Senator,

Im just a regular voter arguing with you that I dont agree with the electoral college.

Perhaps If us citizens knew exactly what and who we vote for, we'd have a better undestanding of how votes are casted in the ballot other than us voting for the "President" but actually voting for the electors of the candidate who really "vote" for us. You've probably have heard of arguments over deteriorating the electoral collage, but if we dont actually vote for our president that we want to be our president then why have a set of electors vote for us when we are tryng to vote for ourselves?

The Electoral Collage is a process of voing for our President along with the Vice President and the electors. This process may be a little overwhelming for some people knowing that they dont actually vote for the wanted President directly, but is a well thoughtout process built by our founding fathes long ago. Maybe there was a reason for not allowing us to really vote for our President diectly instead of having the elecotrs vote for them along with Congress, or even it could have just been a big mess from the beginning that Congress and H.O.R and the Senate have been fixing. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors i n which only 270 of those votes count into electing a Pesident. The author, Bradford Plumer, of the article "Source 2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of he system are wrong" tells us a little of how the system isnt what we really think it is. "Under the electorla college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slae of electors, who in turn elect the president" he asserts. An example Plumer gives us is that if you lived in Texas at the time of John Kerry, when he was running ofr pesident, you would have voted for a group of 34 Democratic electos who would then have voted for Kerry in retun to votin for his electors. A question is, who are these so-called electors? Electors are anyone who doesnt hold puplic office. Who picks the electors? Mostly depends on the state for that job. In that case, in choosuing your electors, they hold presidential conventions, a state party central committee, and even the presidential candidates themselves can pick who his electors are. Including the fact that voters cant always control whom their elctos vote for.

The single best argument against the electoral college is the disaste factor. A disaster factor can be in th form of a tie. If two candidates go into a tie, then the "tie braker," as most people refer it as, it gets sent to the House of Representatives (H.O.R) where state delegations vote on the president; and the senate would choose the vice president. At the most basic level, he electoral college is unfair fo voters. The winner-take-all system in each state, makes it sort of easier fo candidates to get most votes. Which is what you would call the "swing states." During the 2,000 campaign, seventeen staes didnt see the candidates at all, including the state of Rhode Island and Sount Carolina and 25 of the biggest media marcketing companies didnt get to see not one ad from the campaign ads. Its pretty straight forward from here. The electoral college is an unfair system, outdated, and irrational. We basically only have assertions against it. Probably wont even be enough to say that the electoral college is unfair, but is enough to say just for the good of the people.

Knowing that citizens votes have no effect really towards the president, then people would be most likely to not wathc the campaigns during he election season of it all. Therefor, the electoral college, once again, is not a great way of electing our president.