The Electoral College is an outdated system of voting. There are few weak reasons why it should be carried out as the nations voting process. The United States of America should change to election by popular vote for the presidency.

Admmitedely, the winner take all system is a fair way of deviding the votes. In the first article "What Is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Federal Register, the author asserts, "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate." If a presidential candidate spends alot of time, effort, and money in a campaign for a "swing" state; he should be awarded all the votes for winning that state. It is a high risk but high reward to spend all that time and money to only earn sixty percent of the votes. That is why a "winner-take-all" is crucial. To add on, the author of the first article mentions, "Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..." This is saying that a candidate chooses his or her electors, and you vote for the electors to then choose the candidate you voted for. However; the people should have the right to directly choose the candidate of his or her choice. Therefore, the elecoral college is outdated and must be eliminated.

To start off, Bradford Plumer the author of "The indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" states, "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president." Every vote counts. But why make a vote more powerful than another. Citizens shouldn't be given a special vote just because they were chosen by the candidates party. Additionally, Plumer explains, "If you lived in texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for [John] Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry." Why should kerry earn 34 electoral votes. He should earn the amount of voters in that state he persuaded to vote for him. He should not earn the electoral votes of all the people that did not think he was the best presidential candidate. Every vote should count, and that is why the electoral college should be eliminated.

Secondly, Plumer claims "Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. In that case, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. (The senate would choose the vice-president.) Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represnt 35million voters." This method is rediculous. A state with one representative should not have the equal amount of power as a state with 55. If popular vote is made the way of electing then the odds of a tie would be nearly impossible. Also Plumer adds, "Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency." This means more people thought he was better suited to be the President of the United States, but Bush won because of the "quirks" of the electoral college. All in all, the electoral college is unfair, and creates more problems then popular vote.

The United States of america should change from the electoral college to popular vote. The outcome would be better for the country, and fairer to the candidates. That is why the electoral college should be eliminated.