December 18, 2014

Dear State Senator,

Changing to election by popular vote for the president of the United States is more beneficial to the people than an Electoral College. The Electoral College is such a hassle and a process. It's outdated. And it's even irrational. It's not precise to what the people want. The popular vote directly represents who the people want. "-over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now." (Source 2).

The Electoral College is outdated. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution. Back then that was relevant because there weren't as many people in the United States as there are now, which means there are more voters today. In Source 3 it says that the Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism. It's not even a democratic method in modern sense...

The people trust the elector's to vote for their nominee. And that trust can even be broken, so they're not 100% reliable. "-state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilties are...." (Source 1). There's a chance that your vote might not even count. The Electoral College method may turn off voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state. So even if that candidate got a lot of votes in one state the Electoral College can still eliminate that candidate regardless of the people's votes. "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate." (Source 1). The winner-take-all system is unfair because candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, so they focus only on the tight races in the "swing" states. Which makes smaller states feel so irrelevant. They know their vote will have no effect because they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign.

Plus the Electoral College is such an inconventient thing. It is a process that consists of the selection of electors, the meeting of electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. And a majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Why do that when people can just have an overall majority vote on the President? Voters can even expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could lose the presidency. Voters don't even vote for the president, their votes are for the slate of electors, who then elect the president. There could even be confusion that the voters vote for the wrong candidate because they are confused about the electors.

Some people may not like the popular vote for the election of the president because they're afraid of a tie. But in the Electoral College if there was a tie it would lead into a whole new process with the House of Representatives. Most worry about a tie in the electoral votes. The House of Representatives hardly refelects the will of the people.

By changing to the election of popular vote for the president it is way more beneficial to the people because it is a direct way of them having a say in the election. They choose. They don't have to worry about a trust being broken. It's straight forward to the point. The Electoral College is unfair, not 100% trustworthy, and outdated. Take time to think about converting to the popular vote election.

Sincerely,

PROPER_NAME   