Electoral College Argument Analysis

The President is chosen from a group of electors which are picked from the states. Each state gets an elector for every member that state has in congress. The presidential Candidate who receives the state's most popular votes receives electoral votes. The framers were afraid of the public being manipulated by a tyrant and wanted to prevent them from coming to power. (Patterson, 2015, p. 378.) In the early twentieth century the Progressives wanted to give voters the ability to select delegates who will select the nominees. The states were not manipulated to pass this, and party leaders went on to head most of the convention delegates. In the middle 1900s, Democratic leaders chose Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey barely lost the election to Richard Nixon, and the democrats wanted changes in the nominating process.

The electors are far from a majority, they should not have the say over thousands of people. A few state state electors should not have the right to have the candidate who lost the popular vote win the election. If there was no electoral college, every citizen's vote would count, they would all have the ability to make a difference. If the electoral college was first established to protect the people from a tyrant, the electoral college should only do that, not interfere with the outcome of an election where no threat is proposed. Currently, people are quite aware and familiar of the presidential candidates, have a general understanding of what's best for the nation, and can make their own intelligent votes. ("Should the Electoral College be abolished?" n.d.) Another downfall of the electoral college system is that votes cast in smaller states are more significant than those of larger states because the smaller states have fewer electoral votes. Therefor every vote from the people has much more weight than those from larger states. Without the electoral college, candidates