Many people wish to eliminate the Electoral College because it’s considered out-of-date and archaic. According to Source 1, it’s a system our founding fathers set in place that elects the president through designated electors for each state, not by the popular vote. Some may argue that this process is less democratic and can produce elections that result in a victor who gains less of the popular vote than the runner-up did. While both of these are great points, there have only been a few instances in the hundreds of years that the United States has had the Electoral College in place where the popular vote was not in favor of the winner of the presidential election. And due to this, its “undemocratic” nature is actually very consistently in …show more content…
The opposers of the Electoral College would argue that because of the “winner-takes-all” nature of these states, “candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the ‘swing’ states,” in the words of Bradford Plumer from Source 2. Though this can be true, people fail to realize that those swing states are toss-ups in the presidential election because they feature differing interests and a wide array of voters that candidates must appeal to to succeed. Because the Electoral College gives votes to smaller and bigger states, it also guarantees that less populous states still have a say in who runs our country. And while they do have fewer votes than the larger states with millions of more overall voters, this system prevents the smaller regions from being completely unrepresented. It also ensures that candidates campaign around the country, not just in the few big states with substantial populations, since no singular area of the United States has enough votes to win the election for a nominee, as described in Source