For many years, there has been a controversy whether to keep or abolish the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a system that was created by the Founding Fathers to eliminate unfairness and to ensure that all parts of the country are involved in the Presidential election. However, there is evidence for both sides of the argument to prove whether it is an effective system or not. The Electoral College should be abolished from our government. To start off, in some cases, it is unfair to candidates who win the popular vote, but do not win the Electoral vote. For example, in the Presidential Election of 2000, G. W. Bush ended up with 50,456,002 popular votes, Gore with 50,999,897, and Nader with 2,882,955. (Document F) As you can see, Gore was in the lead for the popular vote, and it seems like he had a good chance at being elected President. However in the Electoral vote, G. W. Bush had 271 electoral votes, Gore had 266, and Nader with 0. The lead shifts to G. W Bush, so he ends up winning the Presidential election. Clearly, after a popular vote, the population does favor that candidate more, but then changes the lead after the Electoral College votes. …show more content…
For instance, California has the most electoral votes, 55 votes, opposed to the least number a state could have which is three. Smaller states are at a 52 vote disadvantage. There are 29 states that have less than 10 electoral votes which is more than half of the United States. (Document A) The Electoral College gives the more populated states more power and votes to control the election. To add on, other controlling states include Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida who have the power to control every Presidential election. This ignores the interests of minority states, and it allows the powerhouse states to also give candidates a large amount of electoral votes that can get them into the