Dear, state senator I think changing elections by popular vote for the president of the United States would be better. Each candidate had his or her group of electors. Mostly the political party like Democratic and Republican. he Electoral college is the established Constitution as a compromise between electionof the presdident by vote in congress. Popular votes for the election of the president is more meaningful then having 538 electors and 270 electoral votes. I think the electoral college doesn't work.

In the electoral college system,voters just vote for the president, but along with that your voting for more electors in their political party. This is a very big deal for the people voting in elections. They have no control of whom their electors votr for. The electoral college is also unfair to the canidates because the winner-take-all system in each state. The best arguments in favor is the popular vote, but some canidates still lose from the presidency.

Looking at the breakdown of the number of electoral votes given to each state-California has the most votes. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. or instance, as Romney was in the South he had no campaign heavily in those states. He gained no electoral votes. In toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign-to really take notice inthe competing canidates. Those voters sre the ones to decide the election. Run-Off elections should be avoided, it would greatly complicate the presidential election process.

My advice to you;as the state senator is to not keep the Electoral College. The election of the populae vote would be more precised. It's maybe 1% unfair because in states like california they have like 55,000 republicans voting for 1 canidate. And if there's a tie in the electoral vote, the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president.