With the years, we have changing many things in our society. Since technology, by making new electronic devices, to things in our government, by making new laws and new things to help people in all the country. But, does that mean that we have to change the Electoral College to election by popular vote for the presindet of the United States? In my point of view, the Electoral College is a traditional way to vote the President by the Congress and by qualified citizens that our founding fathers established in our Constitution. And there are many evidence to support that keeping the Electoral College is beneficial to our country.

According to the text "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner, A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College is possible, and it happened in 2000, but it's less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. For example, in 2012, Obama received 61.7% of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3% of Romney. Almost all states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landsalide electoral vote vistory in that satate. This demostrates, how people accept the fact that they are voting the electors and then for the President and Vice president. This help people by making easily the hour of vote for a candidate.

However, as we can se in the texts above, not everybody things like this. For example, in the text "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" by Bradford Plumer, the author says that according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60% of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. But, each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee, it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. (Posner, paragraph #16).

Another evidence from the text "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep our despised mothod of choosing the President" by Richard A. Posner,  is when he says "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal" (Posner, paragraph #19). That means that No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite has no incentive to campaign heavely in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing huis plurality in states that he knows he will win. "The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised..." That highlights how the Electoral College is trying to helping people vote their candidates and feel safe and comfortables with them.

To conclude, despite the fact many people say that the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism and a non-democratic method of selecting  a president, the Electoral College is a traditional way to vote the President by the Congress and by qualified citizens that our founding fathers established in our Constitution that helps our community to help people with thir desicions and make our life more comfortable and easy.