Dear senator of florida state,

I believe the united states should get rid off the electorial college as we all know the electorial college consists of 538 slectors in which a majority of 270 electorial votes are required to elect the president. In response to this the citizens of the U.S.A are technically not voting for the president but voting for the group of electors chosen by the candidate's political party in which as stated in source 1

"you are actually voting for your candidate's electors."

As stated in source 2

voters cannot always control who they are voting for and voters often get confused about the electors and voting for the wrong candidate.

The evidence to support this claim is the

2000 fiasco which was the biggest election crisis of the century. State legislatures are responsible for picking electors and that those electors could always defy the will of the people. Evidence form source 2 goes back to 1960 when segregationists in the louisiana legistlature almost succeded in replacing democratic electors with new electors that did not support and oppose John F. Kennedy thus proving that the electorial college cannot be trusted. Another reason why the electorial college is unfair to the people is because of the winner-takes-all system in each state due to the candidates not being in the state and focus only on the race between "swing" states. Evidence from the 2000 campaign states seventeen states didn't see candidates at all.

Most worrying would be the prospect of the tie in the electoral vote by any means in that type of case the election would be assigned for the House of Representatives where state delegations vote on the president because each state cast only one vote.

An example of this would be the representative from wyoming representing 500,000 voters would have more to say including the representative from california who represents 35 million voters. Those voters vote for one party for president and one for congress, the decision of the house can barely be reflected on the will of the people. supporting this is the election in 1968 in which a shift of 41,971 votes would have deadlocked the election another election in 1976 a tie would occur if 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hawaii had voted the other way.

Though the electoral college is an anachronism it is not democratic in a modern sense because the electors are the ones who choose the president not us the people though each party has to select of slate of electors who are intrusted to vote for the party's nominee. Although the electoral college method despites its lack of democrastic pedigree is still used today its because of its certainty of outcome the reason is because the winning candidate's share of the electoral college exceeds his share of the popular vote, and also avoids run off elections to happen. Another reason why the electoral college method is still used today is as stated in source 3

because it restores weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal- appointment of the senate decreed in the constitution. The electoral colege requires a president candidate to have trans-regional appeal no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president.

Even thogh these reasons oppose my claim as stated in source 2

the electoral college is unfair, oudated and irrational.

An example of this was in

2012 when obama recieved 61.7 percent of the electorial vote against 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and romney

Basically what the electoral college method is a method where only the electoral vote is more importnant than the popular vote or the peoples vote.

In which It supports my claim when I said the people are not voting for the president but for the group of electors who support the candidate. In the example of

2012 obama vs romney obama won because of the percentage of the electorial vote which means that a candidate that is running for president can win the election if the electoral vote surpasses the popular vote.            