The Electoral College is a process, not a place (Archive.gov). The process starts out at the local polling stations, …show more content…
The supporters of this method are normally more conservative and don’t want to mess with the Founding Fathers’ ideas, they put up an argument as to why the United States should keep this method. Many supporters agree with the idea that states should have votes and power proportional to the size of the population, similar to the New Jersey Plan. Another thought is that the power of an individual’s vote is greater when used in divided elections that in a direct individual voter’s election. They also feel that the election is planned out better because instead of trying to win individual votes the candidates travel trying to win each state. The other reason it is planned better is because the winning candidate has to win the 270 votes out of 538 instead of some millions of …show more content…
especially once the flaws are brought to light. I feel that the fact the electors can go directly against what the majority of the state votes and elect a different candidate is disconcerting and imbalanced. I also think that the winner-takes-all rule is ill-advised and injudicious and that the candidates should receive the number of votes they properly earn. The best alternative, in my opinion, is the direct vote, regardless of state or region the winning candidate should be the one who receives the most number of votes nationally, eliminating the need of the middle-men, the electors. If we were to keep the Electoral College method, I think it should be modified to where the winner-takes-all rule is revoked. In summary, though the Electoral College method is the one currently in use in the nation of the United States it is not the most effective method of selecting the president and there are modifications or other systems that would work