Since the inception of our constitution in 1787, there has only been 4 elections where the Electoral College has allowed the future president-elect candidate to win the election, despite losing the popular vote. 4/57 elections is probably something that political scientists don’t lose sleep over, but it is a topic that is worth mentioning and discussing, especially after the controversial presidential election in 2000. From my point of view, I believe that the method we use in selecting our presidents is flawed and ineffective for a couple of reasons. First, the Electoral College has far fewer votes than the American people, yet their vote has a lot more meaning. With 538 delegates representing the Electoral College, it is unfair and inequitable to the millions of people who devote their time and energy to stand in long …show more content…
Hence, the presidential campaign and election is shaped by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, the presidential election should be the vote of the people, not the Electoral College. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution during the summer of 1787, the first 3 words they wrote were “we the people.” They believed that power should solely come from the people and that we should be able to exercise it effectively. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the people of the United States don’t have much of a say in determining who they want as president, since the Electoral College is the primary institution that selects the president and vice president. For both of these reasons, I feel that the Electoral College should not be a “Winner-Take- All” type of system. If we want to have equal representation in all 50 states, we should assign an equal amount of delegates to each state(30, perhaps) , no matter what their population