The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

The Electoral college is a very controversial subject that has a big impact on American history. Every four years, people vote for the president… Or do they? You actually vote for electors that represent your state, and the bigger states get more electors. Sounds perfect right? Wrong. The way the electors are distributed is not perfect, and three times in American history, the person who won the popular vote did not win the electoral vote. That happened in 1888, 2000, and 2016. Because of this, electoral college should be abolished because it is outdated, it does not always reflect the popular vote, and it causes candidates to only campaign in certain states.
The electoral college does not always reflect the popular vote. The popular vote is
It is called faithless electors. Now there are tons of arguments against the electoral college, but this one is by far the strongest. In most elections, the person who wins the electoral vote wins the popular vote. But it is actually possible to win the presidency with zero percent of the popular vote. Even though the 21.8% was mentioned earlier in this essay, that number is gotten is assuming all the electoral voters vote for who they are supposed to be voting for. According to Tyler Lewis, “While electors are generally extremely loyal to the party they align with, they don’t have to vote the way the people of their state instructed them to. In other words, just because a candidate won the popular vote in your state does not mean that your electors have to cast a vote for said candidate themselves.” What Tyler Lewis is stating there is that electors can vote for whoever they want! So one person can override the decision made by thousands, if not millions, of people! A person who does not vote for their states candidate is called a faithless elector. Sure, this rarely happens because some states have penalties if you do this and it has never happened enough to directly affect the results of the election, but the plain fact that this can even happen in the first place is a threat to America’s
After all those reasons so far, these reasons they present make no sense whatsoever. According to USA Today, “If the national popular vote were the ultimate decider, candidates would gravitate toward the voter-rich big cities and their suburbs and ignore everyone else.” Well, USA Today, I know this outdated system will help your precious evil crazy republican Trump dude become president, but it is not democratic. I’m sorry farm guys, but if cities make up the majority, then the interests of the cities will be followed. That's what democracy is all about! And they also say that candidates will only campaign in suburbs and cities. Well, under this current system, they only campaign in swing states! Man, this article is just a bunch of excuses. And there are more examples.