People are lining up, waiting for hours on end to vote for a new president of the United States. That president won every single person's vote, but did not become presient. He did not become president because the ellectoral college voted for the other person. That is unfair because no matter what the citizens say, they are not even completly sure that the president they voted for was going to win. For example, in the year 2000, a little bit after Al Gore, they won the popular vote, but they did not win the presidency because they did not win the electoral vote, according to Source 2. Citizens of the United States should be allowed to a direct vote because in 2000, 60 percent of voters voted that they prefer a direct election, and because the voters are not voting for the president, they are voting for a slate of electors.

To begin, according to source 2, "If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you would vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes." This quote from Source 2 is explaining what your vote couts for when you go to elect for a president. Those electors are anyoen who doesn not own a public office. Who elects the electors is the state.

In addition, this year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency and yet, the electoral college still has its defenders, states in source 2.

All in all, the electoral college is unfair to voters, because the winner takes it all system does not work in every state.