The electoral college is outdated and unnecessary

The United States of America holds dear the ideal of people controlling their government. Although direct democracy, where each individual votes on everything, is impractical in a country the size of the US, the government has been set up to be practical and still give a great deal of power to the people. However, in the election of the President, there is insufficient control by the people, mainly because of the archaic mechanism of the Electoral College.

When someone votes in the presidential election, he or she is not actually voting for a candidate, but for a party. When one party gets the majority of the votes in a state, that party's previously selected slate of delegates, allotted by the number of congressional representatives in that state, is allowed to vote for a candidate. A presidential candidate needs to win 270 out of 538 electoral votes in order to be elected.

There are several reasons that the Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers. The first seems condescending and silly in the information age - they did not trust the public to elect the right person. They felt that the small group of well-informed members of the Electoral College would be less likely to be duped. In today's age of mass-media coverage, where frivolous candidates do not make it past the primaries, this reasoning is no longer appropriate.

In fact, at that time, the public did not vote for President at all. The members of the Electoral College were chosen from each state and only they voted. Since then, all states have adopted laws that state how the Electors vote is decided by the popular vote.

The second and most frequently given reason for the Electoral College is that it equalizes the power of the big and small states. Although this is the stated reason, the end result is an inequity in the voting power of each person. Those lucky enough to live in Wyoming have votes that count for one 70,000th of an electoral vote. However, those unlucky enough to live in heavily populated states have votes that count for far less. For example, in California, the most heavily populated state in the Union, each person's vote counts for only one 179,000th of an electoral vote. Someone in California has less than half the voting power of someone in Wyoming.

The system is even more unfair because almost all of the states in America have their electoral votes on a winner take all system. If one party wins the majority of the population in a state, that party wins 100% of the electoral votes, regardless of whether 50.1% or 99.9% voted for that party.

This winner-take-all system results in very unfair outcomes. In the election of 2000, the state of Florida was won by less than 600 votes, yet President Bush won all of Florida's 25 electoral votes. Considering that President Bush got 271 electoral votes, only one more than the number needed to win, the outcome could have been very different had the election been based on population totals instead. In fact, candidate Al Gore won the country's popular vote, the actual tally of the people's votes. It seems to follow that the will of the populace was to elect Al Gore as America's 43rd president.

Also, in the election of 1876, between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden, Hayes won by one electoral vote. However, Hayes actually got only 48% of the popular vote, with Tilden receiving 51%. Clearly, the candidate receiving a majority of the popular vote should have become president.

The system of election that would make the most sense in America is simply election by popular vote. Each person casts one vote, with their vote counting for exactly the same as everyone else's. Virtually all of the confusion evident in the Electoral College system would be eliminated. Whoever receives the majority of the country's voters obviously is the person that the people of America wish to be their President. The outdated Electoral College system is a remnant from days when Americans did not even vote for President. The current system should be done away with in favor of the popular vote.