The Electoral College has been established since the founding of our country. It is a system that has been tried and tested to work over the course of centuries. It should be upheld for it's ability to produce a solid outcome, and though it has the possibility of failing it's faults are not worse than the popular vote system, and that the Electoral College fosters a presidency campaign that appeals to multiple regions of the United States. This fair system allows representation of the people's will, just like the rest of our government does.

Faith in a certain outcome of the presidential election ensures that the vote has as little complications as possible, and is a reason the Electoral College is necessary. According to source one, "What Is The Electoral College?", each political party has it's own set of electors that equal the amount of congressional delegates per state. Usually each state has a "winner-take-all" method, so the presidential candidate that gets majority in your state will get all of the electors that represent their party, not just most of them. This is beneficicial to the outcome of the election becuase it makes the ability for a candiate to get majority vote much simpler. There is less of a possibility of a tie, or an outcome where no candidate wins. Source 3, "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to keep out despised method of choosing president", states that "even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral-vote victory in that state..." , therefore allowing the candidate to secure all votes to their side, instead of having the votes divided on the line of majority rule, and causing rifts between Electoral College voters.

No system is perfect, and the Electoral College is not exempt from this. "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong", Source 2, argues that a term called 'disaster factor', or the possibility of immenent disaster due to the Electoral College system, is why the Electoral College system should be abolished. The passage uses individual instances, like the fact that in 1960, segrigationists in Lousiana nearly appointed Democratic electors that would vote against their candidate, or that in rare instances, "faithless" electoral voters would vote for the other side. These are strawman arguments, using specific instances to come to a conclusion that the whole system should be abolished. While the Electoral College system isn't perfect, neither is the popular vote system. The popular vote system has a higher chance of causing a tie between candidates, and it doesn't have a "winner-take-all" standard. In a tie, the vote would be given to the House of Representatives, which, according to source 2, "..can hardly be expected to reflect the will of the people..", as citizens often vote one party in for president and another for Congress.

In addition, the Electoral College fosters a more nationwide appeal for the candidate's campaign. Source 3 brings up the fact that no region in the United States has enough electoral votes to elect a president. The "winner-take-all" system further benefits this, because in order to win, candidates have to focus their attention on states where their majority vote is insecure. They will not focus on regions where they have essentially secured the majority rule and therefore secured all the electoral votes. In popular vote, they would have to focus extensively on those regions, as the few that are not in the majority would need convincing. Source 3 goes into detail as to why a regionally picked candidate is not a proper show of the will of the people. It states that "The residents of other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised - to feel that thier votes do not count, that their new preident will have no regard for their interests...", and so having a trans-regional appeal is essential to properly representing the will of United States citizens.

Our Electoral College system should be defended and kept. It has the ability to produce a solid outcome, has flaws but ones that are not more disasterous than other systems, and drives candidates to try and present a national appeal. A single vote does not decide an election, the representation of our people should not be split in half, divided. The Electoral College does its best to give the nation the president it deserves.