Some of the main arguments against the electoral college are that 1) It provides inequitable representation, and 2) It decreases voter turnout. On the contrary, however, the Electoral College provides completely equal representation to not only the states, but also to the people. It is a genius mechanism for guaranteeing that all of the U.S. Be represented, instead of just the highly populated areas. On top of that, there is extreme lack of evidence for the argument of decreased voter turnout. The worst part is that a report by the Huffington Post tells us that without the electoral college, there would be decreased voter turnout. Ultimately, it needs to stay.
The catalyst for the majority of dissent the Electoral College receives is out of unmitigated ignorance. Incredulity is not enough for a sound argument, and in varying degrees exclaiming "I don't know understand it, so it must not work" is lazy. To those that claim "very little is known" about the electors or the College, that's your fault. We live in the Age of Information, your state's electors are public knowledge and can be found with a simple search with any mundane search engine. If my opinion so far somehow feels filled with arrogance and written in a condescending tone: good, that was my intention, but I suppose I'd be hypocritical to tell you that your opinions are weak and lazy if I didn't at least offer a contrary position. The Electoral College may seem complicated or antiquated, and I'm not going to delve into the history of the institution, but lightly defend it. 7% of the 56 American presidential elections has the losing candidate win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. That is 4 out of 56. "But, Bob I think 4 is too many blah blah it's unfair blah blah Bush STOLE the election." Well then, I'm going to ask you politely to not interrupt me again, or I swear to god, I'll turn this car around; don't make me come back there. However, that threat issued to your incessant whining, you bring a valid point. Is 4 too many times to overrule the majority of the American will? The simple answer: no. The long answer: no, it isn't. I'm not here to argue that the Electoral College is a perfect system, because it isn't, I'm here to argue that the Electoral College is a better voting system than simply "Majority Takes All." Why, you ask? Shut up, and stop interrupting me as I was about to tell you 'why?' First, I hark back to that 93% of presidential elections have been decided by the "popular" vote. That is an incredibly near-perfection rating that is unheard of in the realm of American politics. Secondly, we aren't going for a "100% majority chooses," are we? No. We aren't. The Electoral College preserves the integrity of the election process through protecting the interests of minority states. The Electoral College prevents the domination of a populous state or metropolitan region over smaller and rural states and regions. No region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes to win the presidency. There is an incentive to form coalitions of regions, and voting blocs that may be dispersed throughout the country rather than instigate or aggravate regional differences. The winning candidate, and president elect, must leverage. It is because of this "leverage effect" that the presidency, as an institution, tends to be more sensitive to ethnic minority and other special interest groups than does the Congress as an institution. Changing to a direct election system would therefore actually damage minority interests as they would be overwhelmed by a national popular majority.
The United States needs to get rid of the Electoral college. To me, and many Americans, it just does not make much sense. I think that if someone wins an election by popular vote, then they should win the election overall. With the electoral college, this does not happen. I think that the electoral college may have had a place in politics 200 years ago, but not in today's society.
In short, the legislature selected electors, who in turn elected a president and vice president. So where did that leave the American people? In the early days of the Electoral College, they didn't seem to have much of a voice. Fortunately, today, members of the Electoral College are no longer appointed by the legislature, but are voted on by the American public as they cast their votes for presidential candidates. However, so little is known about Electoral College nominees -- or the Electoral College process in general -- that on Election Day, most Americans believe they are casting their votes for president. In reality, they're voting for unnamed electors who will cast the deciding votes in the presidential race.
The Electoral College is antiquated and out dated. There is no reason to keep such an ancient idea as part of the election process every four years. Without the Electoral College, candidates won't be able to focus all of their resources on one state such as Ohio or Florida. Ideally, a presidential candidate should be able to appeal to everyone in the first place, not just citizens of one area.
During the election with Bush junior he lost the votes per capita but won because some electoral college member choose to vote for Bush junior instead of the person the population chose. I don’t think the electoral college is right for the United States because the peoples votes should count, not a middle man that talks with lobbyists.
The electoral college leads to all sorts of strange things, like some states simply not mattering (because it's almost certain which way they're going to go) and other states, like Ohio, getting a disproportionate amount of candidates' attention because of their high electoral vote count combined with the large number of undecided voters. The President of the United States should be campaigning for the entire United States, and the votes of the entire US should matter.