Suffrage For the People?
When our nation was in it's infancy nearly 300 years ago, our founding fathers had a dream of a government that served the people. While they wanted to have this government's positions filled by popularly elected officials, our founders felt the American public did not know enough of politics to rest the decision solely on their shoulders. Recently The Electoral College has come under fire about whether the feudal system is still effective or if it should be changed for a direct popular vote. Many officials have taken sides on the issue and both sides have well-established reasons to both get rid of the College and keep it. There have been several key issues which politicians have taken sides over; some are recent issues while others are dated and classic flaws. There are three arguments that seem to raise the most controversy; they are public interaction with the current system, the balance of voting power granted to the smaller states, and several minor flaws that add up to a generally big problem.
The Electoral College is considered by many to be an archaic and non-Democratic system while others hail it as a fair and just system for choosing the next American president.
When looking at the effectiveness of the Electoral College, some people question the interaction with the public that the debate would produce. Under the current system of voting, "candidates only have to travel to 14 or 18 states, as in recent elections, which still produce a majority of the votes" (Phillips 67). This current system requires far less money from supporters and is better at decreasing the fear that those with money really have control over who will be next in the White House. If a wealthy person really wanted a candidate to...