The electoral college is an unfair and outdated system. It is unfair to voters. A states electoral votes often do not tell what that state truly wants. And no candidate should face what Gore did in 2000, with a winning popular vote, but less electoral votes losing him the election. It is an outdated system that should not be used in today's modern society.

When we vote for a specific president, we are actually voting for a slate of electors. The chosen electors are supposed to support the winning candidate, but they can easily decide to ignore that and cast their vote toward whomever the please. This can cause a president to get the greatest popular vote, and still lose because they did not get as many electoral college votes once all states' votes have been combined. This should certainly not happen. Whatever candidate is preferred by the most people to take office should win the election, period. In the past, maybe it would have been good to let the more educated electors choose the president rather than any citizen, but in this modern age of knowledge, people can be trusted to choose a leader that shares in the best interests of our country. Al Gore in 2000 lost the election after winning the most popular votes. That shows us that this electoral system does not work effectively, and should not be used today.

Perhaps more worrying is the electoral college's winner-take-all system. If a candidate wins a state's election by a tiny amount, they get every electoral vote for that state. This allows candidates to ignore smaller states, or states they know they will win, and focus on larger states and ones that have a very tight election could be easily persuaded for advertisements and campaigns. Ohio is known as a state that looks at their candidates closely, and can be persuaded to choose one based on what they know about them. Candidates tend to focus more resources here or in other similar states. It makes some sense to focus more on larger populations, and states like Ohio that are more interested in the election, but during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, and could not make educated descisions during the election. In a close election, half the people in the state's views will be ignored, and will not matter to the elction. That means half of California's 35 million voters would not matter at all in the election. The fate of the election should not be put in the hands of Ohio or other "swing" states, just ignoring less important ones.

Today's society needs a more fair system of electing a president. A popular vote from everyone is the most fair way to make sure the most popular candidate wins the election, and will cause candidates to focus on all citizens, focusing on large populations, but still trying to gain popularity with rural areas as well. America's citizens deserve a fair, proper election, that satisfies the most people possible.