Dear state senator,

Election day is held every four years on the frist Tuesday in the month of November. When you elect for president would you perfer voting yourself and having your vote count or voting for someone who will then vote for your state and elect for the president of choice. For example, lets use the election of Obama versus MittRomeny. Imagnie if you voted for a man who said "If you vote for me to repersent your state I will elect Obama!" He might be tricking you and vote for MittRomeny when it is time for them to vote. That means your vote for them and that promise he made to your state dosn't matter because he wanted to voted for MittRomney and he knew majority of the state would go for Obama.

I believe that the Electoral College is wrong for the simple fact is that you do not know the intentions of the reperesentors. For example, in article "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" it states in section "What's wrong with the electoral college" that "Back in 1960, segregations in the Louisiana legislature nearly succeeded in replacing the Democratic eletors with new electros who would oppose John F. Kennedy. (So that a popular vote for Kennedy would not have actually gone to Kenndey.) In the same vein, 'faithless' electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for whomever they please.... Oh, and what state sends two electors to Congress? It happenend in Hawaii in 1960. Luckily, Vice President Richard Nixon, who was presiding over the Senate, validated only his opponent's electors, but he made sure to do so 'without establishing a precedent'" This ststement shows that whoever is running can overthrow the other by chaning the mind of their electors.

Also it state in the the same article and same section that "ATt the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know have no chance of winning, focuding only  on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventenn states didn't see the candidiates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didin't get to see a single campaign ad." That means the states who did not get to see campaign ads blindly vote for an elector who will then blindly vote for a president.

I believe that popular voting will be a lot better because so that everyone can vote and not just one person picking for an entier state. Also in popular voting campagin ads will be seen in every state and everybody can make their own choices so noone is blindly voting. At the end after each state is done voting, all the votes will be added together, and a president will be chosen by majoirty rules. So state senator, what is your choice?    