Dear Mr. Senator,

The Electoral College has served us for more than a century in determining our nation's new president. "The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress," states the article "What Is the Electoral College?" written by the Office of the Federal Register. This means that we do not vote directly vote for our new president, but instead vote for electors that vote for a candidate running for office. Though many individuals are in favor of keeping the Electoral College, if kept, it will continue to cause problems in our nation. Our presidential campaign will be much better if we change to election by popular vote for the president of the United States.

To begin with, the Electoral College is the cause for many issues in our nation's presidential campaign. First of all, voters sometimes cannot even control whom their electors vote for. Ergo, one may vote for an elector of our favorite candidate's party, however, we don't know if that elector will go back on his word and vote for another cadidate. The article "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" written by Bradford Plumer states, "The single best argument against the electoral college is what we might call the disaster factor. The American people should consider themselves lucky that the 2000 fiasco was the biggest election crisis in a century; the sytem allows for much worse. Consider that state legislators are technically responsible for picking electors, and that those electors could always defy the will of the people". This means that the people never know if their electors are going to go back on their word and vote for another candidate. Aside from that, their is the worrying aspect of a tie occurring. If that were to happen, then the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives. The article The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" written by Bradford Plumer states, "In 1968, a shift of just 41, 971 votes would have deadlocked the election; In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 votes in Ohio and 3,687 votes in Hawaii had voted the other way". This says that if those people had just voted for the opposite person, then there would have been a tie between the two candidates. Yes, those numbers seem large, but in comparison to the number of voters that there were in those years, they're a small fraction of them. This shows how close elections are with the Electoral College.

Aside from causing issues in the United States, the Electoral College is extremely unfair to voters. The article, "What Is the Electoral College?" written by the Office of the Federal Register states, "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate". That is not fair to other voters who don't vote for the popular candidate in their state; they don't receive any electors. Additionally, most candidates only advertise and visit "swing" states. "Swing" states are the states that usually determine the outcome of the election. "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" written by Bradford Plumer says, "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad". It's unjustifiable that simply because you have fewer electors in your state, you don't get to watch your candidates campaign. As previously mentioned, each state has a different number of electoral votes. It all depends on the population. For example, Texas, with a huge population has 38 electors, while Maine only has 4. The article, "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid out defenses of the system are wrong" states, "Beacuse 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 represent 35 million voters". Why do some states have more representatives than others just because of their population? It's not fair to the smaller states. It is true that the bigger states have more people in them, needing more representation, however, the smaller states have as much to say as the big ones. '

To conclude, the Electoral College has caused many disastorous factors in our presidential campaigns. It has caused the wrong president to be elected, and it doesn't give our citizens much of a voice in the election. However, changing the system to popular vote for the president will give people a louder voice in this nation and it will show them that the government cares about their opinion. As the article, "The Indefesible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid out defenses are wrong" written by Bradford Plumer states, "It's officual: The Electoral College is unfaor, outdated, and irrational. The best arguments in favor of it are mostly assertions without much basis in reality. And the arguents against direct elections are spurious at best. It's hard to say this, but Bob Dole was right: Abolish the electoral college!"