The Electoral College makes Americas electoral process different from everyone else in the world. After every ballot in the country has been counted, a group of electors votes all over again to decide who will be president (this group is determined by the number of people in the House Of Representatives). Many people view this process as the actual election, and it can really be a source of controversy if an election race turns out to be a close one, as in the years 1800, 1824, 1876. During the 20th century, we had very close election races too, like the Kennedy-Nixon race, and the Bush-Gore election. The Electoral College has been functional since America became a nation. However, it seems as though the country needs to make some amendments regarding the electoral system.
With Americas present electoral system, it is possible for the popular vote to become useless. For example, in 1824, Andrew Jackson got the most popular votes but still lost. In 1888, Grover Cleveland won more votes, but Harrison was elected as president (Jantzen and others, 1989, 82). Under this system, we can see that the true element of democracy in every election is being bypassed. Why let everybody vote and yet only a small group of electors actually decide the outcome of the election?
The Electoral College might have been appropriate during the time of the Founding Fathers, but it doesnt look applicable in our time because our population is getting bigger and more people are voting. We cannot afford to let their votes and their voices sink and not be heard just because of a formal technicality in the electoral process. Holding presidential primaries, launching campaigns, and doing the actual elections cost millions of dollars. This huge amount of money would be a big waste if the popular voice of the crowd is not heard, and instead, the election becomes concentrated only on states which have more number of electoral votes to be won. In my opinion, this is quite unfair to the people who voted, and to the candidate who won the popular vote. Under these arguments, my view is that we should amend the electoral process or totally abolish the Electoral College.
译文:
美国总统竞选机制有必要改变吗？
选举团使得美国的竞选过程不同于世界上任何一个国家。在统计完全国的选票之后，一组选票将最终决定谁会成为总统（这组选票出自众议院）。很多人觉得这个过程是真的在竞选，而且它也走近了大众，可以成为人们议论的话题，比如1800年、1824年、和1876年的就是这样。20世纪里也有如此贴近群众的竞选，比如肯尼迪与尼克松的竞选、布什和哥尔的竞选，就好象国家需要通过竞选机制来改变什么似的。
然而美国的竞选机制可以使得票较多的候选人落选。比如在1824年，安德鲁.杰克逊得到了绝对优势的选票但是落选了。1888年，格罗弗·克利夫兰也得到了较多的选票，但是威廉亨利·哈里森却当选了那界的总统（还有1989年的杰森和82年的另外一位）。 我们能够发现，在这种机制之下，每次的竞选都会回避真正的民主。为什么让大家投票选举结果实际上却是由选举团所属的少数选民来决定？
选举团在大陆发现者那辈人的时代可能是适用的， 但在我们这个时代看来并不合适， 因为我们的人口在增长从而有更多的人来投票。 我们不能让从前的老规矩使得他们的投票和声音在选举中都被压下去了，听不到了。获得总统侯选人提名，发起竞选和真刀实枪的竞选过程都需要大量的金钱。如果群众主流的声音不能被听到的话这笔数目庞大的资金就会是个巨大的浪费。就我的观点而言，这种竞选机制对选民和获得多数民众支持的候选人是不公平的。在这些争议之下，我认为我们需要修正竞选机制或者干脆废除它。