er this week, the results could still be changed as the result of “faithless electors.” (Bai, 2000) A faithless elector is pledged to a candidate but then changes their mind when they actually cast their ballot on Dec. 18. (Bai, 2000) Although this possibility is rare, but it isn’t unheard of. Nearly half of the states punish faithless electors who don’t honor their states popular vote with a modest fine. (Bai, 2000) But what it all comes down to is that we wouldn’t necessarily be having this problem if the election of a president and vice president were simply based on the nations popular vote. When our nation was born in the 1700s, mass media was virtually unheard of. But quite a bit has changed since then. People from smaller states also argue that they struggle for attention from candidates already, and if the election was based on popular vote they may never see the candidate if he campaigns in the more populous states. (“New Calls,” 2000) But I say that that is the beautiful thing about communications today. Who cares if the candidate never comes to your state, when all of his issues can be heard on the TV or radio, or read in the daily newspaper? And the best part is that your individual vote will actually mean something in the election.As you can see, there is plenty of evidence supporting the removal of the Electoral College system. The system was right for our nation for sometime, but times are changing. With the use of media and our speedy communications, an election based on the popular vote would be a better method for choosing a new president and vice-president. Hopefully in the next presidential election the nation’s public can vote and feel that their vote has truly meant something...
