To understand why the Electoral College is unnecessary today, let's look at why it was created: The founding fathers thought the general population was stupid.\nThe fear here was that early Americans would vote en masse for someone who was actually bad for them, or that a large state would control the presidency by continually voting for a "favorite son."\nOf course, 200 years ago there were no such things as 24-hour news channels constantly streaming information about the candidates.\nOne argument in favor of the Electoral College is that it gives more power to smaller states, but if it does, why don't the candidates campaign more in Indiana and similar-sized states? The Electoral College assures them that most of these states are lost causes, and thus less of the citizenry participates in the democratic process.\nIn the days before the election, we are asked to vote for a candidate for president, not an elector to vote for the president. If electors were advertised over the candidate would anyone really care about the presidential election? No, we'd feel that our voice was being silenced, but unfortunately, that is exactly what happens with each and every presidential election.\nKeeping the Electoral College around only serves to insult a better educated population and lessen the impact of each individual vote.
Keep it going\nSmall states have larger voice with electors\nhould Americans scrap the only process for electing our commander-in-chief the nation has ever known?\nWe say no. \nFirst of all, the United States is a democratic-republic, not a complete democracy. The Electoral College gives smaller states, like Wyoming, a voice in the presidential election. By allowing the state to have three electoral votes, it gives them tangible power to decide who they, as a state, want as president.\nThe Electoral College illustrates a representative society, where every state is involved in the process. In highly populated areas, such as New York, the population alone is greater than some states. Should the whole city of New York's vote count just as much as the entire delegation of Hawaii? \nJust because 2000's popular vote winner wasn't elected president doesn't mean we should throw out the whole system. That election was an anomaly. No election in recent memory, besides that one, has one candidate won the popular vote and not won the election. People shouldn't let their misgivings about the 2000 election carry over to altering the Constitution.\nIt comes down to a Constitutional question that's split Americans over the ages: does the federal government derive its power from the states or the people? And we believe it's the states.
