Essay over the electoral college Essay

In the United States today, we use the Electoral College to decide who is going to be the next president. The presidency is not necessarily won by popular vote. The founding fathers opted for the Electoral College, because they were afraid of the masses. They wanted the president to be chosen by those who are qualified, well informed, and have the ability to chose a president more efficiently then the so called â€Å"mob.† Although I believe the Electoral College needs many changes, it is necessary in order to have a successful government that is fair. Thee main argument against the Electoral College is that the presidency should be won by popular vote alone. It shouldn’t be that one candidate could win the popular vote, but lose the election. At first I completely agreed with this, because we do live in a democracy, and I believe that a democracy is a government for the people by the people. This would mean that the mass population decides who is the president, not a hand picked group of men to vote on who they wish, because they do not always have to vote on the candidate in which the state has voted the majority on. Although the Electoral College may take away the presidency from the candidate that won the majority vote, it evens things out across the nation. The Electoral College is necessary to make every state important in the voting process. If you did not have the Electoral College, those who were running for office would only campaign in the major states, that way they could get the majority of the population. For example the candidate would advertise and campaign in New York, especially New York City, because there is such a vast amount of people who live there, so he would try to assure that he had the votes for this city, and majority of the state, and would not have to worry about Montana. They candidate would then not go to smaller less populated states like Montana, South or North Dakota. He would not worry about the states or cities that had little populations, because are all he needs to worry about is that the majority of the people in the United States vote for him. It would be much easier to win an election by getting more people in more populated cities to vote, and not worrying about the little populations. This in fact takes away from the idea of a democracy, because it conveys the message that the only thing a presidential candidate  needs to worry about is getting the majority of the votes, and this does not have to be all over the nation, because there are parts of the nation that the population well exceeds other parts. The founding fathers developed the electoral college because they were afraid of what the government would be like if the â€Å"masses† were allowed to determine who they wanted in office. They were aware that it would turn into a popularity thing, and that is not what was needed in order to run a government efficiently. Although the population must have a say in the government, there has to be some form of control, and that was the basis of the Electoral College. I think that in order for the Electoral College to be successful, and to function properly, there has to be some major changes to it. The biggest change needs to be the fact that the electors themselves need to be abolished. I think that it should be set up to where the popular vote in the state decides whom the electoral votes from the state go. The majority of the time this is what happens, but it does not have to. If an elector wanted to vote for someone other then that the state allotted popular vote to, they very well could. I do not think that it should be allowed, because by doing that it takes the democracy out of the government, because it is never a certain thing that the populace’ wish will be carried out. If you want to go even farther you could break it down into districts with in the state. Each district gets one Electoral College vote, and the vote goes to the candidate in which has the majority of that district. The Electoral College is definitely needed in this country in order for the election process to be fair to all states and thus to all constituents. Although winning by popular votes sounds like the way to go in a democracy, it is not. If that were the case then there would be no equality among states, and the fact that everybody matters in a democracy would not be. There would be very little concentration on other small or less populated states, because you could win the election without them.