that grants ultimate voting power to state electors. It is 538 state electors who decide what is best of the majority of Americans. Funny though, the government must have forgotten that the American voter is not incompetent when it comes to electing our nation's leaders. That is why the archaic policy of the Electoral College must be reformed. While the system may have been satisfactory when our nation was still growing and developing, it no longer holds its credibility

The fact that the Electoral College compromise allowed southern states to possess more votes than that of northern states (in order to influence the results of presidential elections), represents the injustice of a weighted system. Even today, the American voters face the same turmoil. For example, when determining the number of electoral votes a state will receive there are different population standards set forth for each state. Democratic senator, Ron Tupa, from Colorado, demonstrates that a state possessing a small population, such as that of Wyoming, only having 494,000 residents, is granted three electoral votes, while the state of Colorado, having 4.3 million residents, possesses only three times the voting power of Wyoming despite having nine times the population. Why is this system still employed when majority of Americans, especially those residing in states with large populations, are not respectfully given a whole vote?

ith the inconsistency of the number of electoral votes in correlation to a state's population, there is also the adverse presence of state electors. Senator Tupa explains that the state electors are chosen by state legislators, which creates the conflict of the American

people not knowing who is voting for them. There is also the problem of "faithless electors." For example, in the 2000 presidential election, a Democratic elector representing the District of Columbia decided to not place his vote for Al Gore even though Gore had won the popular vote for Washington, D.C. This specific instance leads to the fact that state electors do not always abide by the people's choice when placing their own votes. How can the American people have faith in the Electoral College when their own state electors will not consistently honor the votes of the popular majority?

he winner-take-all method is another fault of the Electoral College. When a certain candidate receives fifty percent of the residents' votes, the candidate is then given all of the electoral votes for that state. But where do the other fifty percent of the votes go? The remaining votes are just simply thrown out. But can the factor of time efficiency when counting votes be justified? The fact of the matter is that the number of voters actually going to the polls has dropped over the years. More than likely this result is influenced by the element of the winner-take-all system because there is the increased likelihood that your own vote will be thrown out with the masses. Is that what the Electoral College has made of the people's choice? Trash?!

If you happen to think back to our Founding Fathers, who ironically placed so much significance on man's civil rights and liberties and choice, wouldn't you assume that our current government would at least attempt to improve on the same democratic ideals that this nation was founded upon? The United States will not be a true democracy until each American that chooses