Electing a president is not an easy task, and the way in which the United States elects its top officer receives both accolades and criticism. The Electoral College has been in use since the founding fathers included it in the Constitution and gives largely populated states, such as California and New York, more electors.\nBut after Election 2000's close race between Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush, many citizens, including New York Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton, are calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.\nBut we must ask ourselves whether ending the voting system we've been using for more than 200 years will make electing a president more fair or easier.\nIt will not. To rely solely on the popular vote would be detrimental to most of the country.\nConsider a sparsely populated state, such as Montana. If the United States based its election on the result of a popular vote alone, a presidential candidate would never even consider visiting a state such as Montana to campaign and express his or her views. But by campaigning throughout the country, candidates are better able to shape their ideas and beliefs for the nation. And they are forced to pay attention to the concerns of minority groups, whose voters are a small percentage of the national vote but a large percentage in some states.\nBeing elected president should not be about winning just the largely populated states, such as California and New York, but rather about campaigning and winning states throughout the nation. The candidates should get a feel for the whole nation and learn about the concerns and questions raised by all Americans, not just those living in big cities.\nAbolishing the Electoral College would almost certainly mean even more waiting than what we are experiencing now. Most Americans are already complaining that we still don't know the results of this election. Imagine if we relied on the popular vote -- it would take weeks before we knew who was president. Based on the popular vote, each state would have to count every single absentee and overseas ballot; instead of recounting a few counties in a close election, we'd have to recount every ballot in the nation.\nThe issue of third party candidates also plays a vital role if the Electoral College is abolished. Without the Electoral College, if more than two candidates run for president in a popular vote election, it will be almost impossible to win a majority of votes. Does America really want to elect a candidate who wins with only 30 percent of the vote, for example? Probably not. The Electoral College avoids that.\nWhile it might sound like a good, easy solution to eliminate the Electoral College and base America's presidency on the popular vote, it is not practical. Citizens want to be able to choose their president directly. But without the Electoral College, elections as we know them will cease to exist, and that is not a good step for our nation to take.
Staff Vote: 10-1-3
