In the United States, the Electoral College decides the victor of a national race. Each state has its own number of electoral votes, which is controlled by state populace. This framework is a "champ takes all" framework. Which implies the hopeful with 50 percent or a greater amount of the votes in an individual state gets the majority of that states electoral votes. A few people have seen this framework as obsolete and unreasonable. Many are taking a gander at an approach to change the framework and others might want to get rid of the framework Understanding the variables that justified the formation of the framework is fundamental. At the point when the constitution was being made, the designers needed to abstain from making a solid official branch. One thought the designers made was to have congress straightforwardly pick the president. Be that as it may, the thought was rejected on the grounds that some felt that settling on this decision would be excessively troublesome and leave ill will in …show more content…
Competitors won't intensely crusade in states they know they can't win or states they know they can't lose. Seeing an applicant vigorously battling in states that reliably vote a specific gathering, for example, New York (Democrat), California (Democrat), and Texas (Republican), is exceptionally uncommon or even non-existent. Rather, hopefuls will intensely battle in "swing states", expresses that don't generally vote a similar gathering, for example, Ohio, and Florida. Another contention against the Electoral College is that littler states are over spoken to, due to the way the votes or appropriated. In his article, ”10 reasons why the Electoral College is an issue”, writer Eric Black expresses, " An individual citizen in Wyoming has more than triple the weight in electoral votes as an individual in California" (Black,