¶ … members of the Electoral College are selected by voters; earlier, however, over 50% of states picked electors from within their governments, thereby eliminating the American public's direct participation in presidential elections. The onset of the 19th century witnessed a rapid transformation of this practice, with voting rights granted to an increasingly broader population segment. With continued expansion of the electorate, a number of individuals entitled to vote in the election for Electoral College members also increased, up to its current limit of every eligible adult American citizen (a legal adult means anyone who is 18 years of age or older). Therefore, the tradition voters choosing presidential electors became a preliminary, lasting facet of America's Electoral College structure. Also, though states (theoretically) still enjoy constitutional choosing rights via an alternative mode, this is highly unlikely (Electoral College - Facts & Summary). The Electoral College's existence and duties are, in modern American society, so little-known that a majority of voters in the U.S. think they directly vote for their President as well as Vice President during elections. Despite Electoral College members being popular figures in the government, (e.g., state legislators, governors, or other local and state governmental authorities), they often aren't recognized by society as the "real" electors. In a majority of states, in fact, the ballot does not mention individual electors' names; rather, it is only the names of the different Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates that appear, often prefixed by the phrase "electors for." Furthermore, it is normally stated that the winning contender electoral has "been awarded" electoral votes, as though the process didn't involve human beings at all. Arguments against the Electoral College System

Those who oppose the current U.S. Electoral College system state that they are bothered by the fact that it is likely that, in some cases, the country has voted (or will, in future, vote) in a minority candidate as President (i.e., a candidate who didn't win more than 50% popular votes). The above concern is not totally groundless, as that may happen in three instances. One means of electing a minority candidate into the presidential post would be due to very profound political division within the nation, such that electoral votes are split among no less than three candidates running for President in a way that none obtains the required majority. This scenario transpired in the year 1824; it was attempted unsuccessfully in the 1948 elections, and once again in the 1968 elections (Kimberling). If this were to recur in the near future, it can be resolved in two potential ways: either one of the candidates could cast his vote in another's favor (prior to convening of Electors); or, when there is no absolute majority obtained through Elector voting, the President would be chosen by the lower congressional house, according to the 12th Amendment. However, by following either of the two courses of action, the individual becoming President wouldn't have entered office with absolute-majority votes. It is still not clear how directly electing the President can be the solution of such a major national conflict by foregoing the introduction of a run-off election, which, undoubtedly, would substantially increase costs, effort and time, already dedicated to choosing an individual to head the nation, and which may likely deepen political rifts, while attempting to bridge them.

Additionally, those who oppose the existing Electoral College structure indicate risks of alleged "faithless" Electors, who vow to cast their vote in favor of their party's Presidential candidate, but end up voting for the candidate of another party (Kimberling). This century has presented seven electors of this sort. Further, in a rather recent example -- the 1988 elections -- a Democrat West Virginian Elector voted for Michael Dukakis as vice president and Lloyd Bensen as president, when in fact, it was supposed to be the other way round. However, Faithless Electors fail at altering an election's outcome, simply because their intention, usually, isn't making a difference; rather, it is making a statement. A third concern of the Electoral College opponents is its likely role in voter turnout reduction. Opponents argue that, as every individual State is allowed equal number of votes, irrespective of its individual voter turnout, states have no incentive for encouraging participation in voting (Kimberling). In fact, states may have reasons to dissuade people from participating, for allowing minority citizens' votes to determine the entire State's electoral vote; Southern states are generally attacked with this regard. Lastly, some Electoral College opponents, rather rightly, claim that it fails to precisely indicate the popular will of the nation in no less than two respects.

In most states, the Presidential contender with majority votes wins each and every electoral vote within the state. There are some U.S. states that have a The U.S. Electoral College system compels presidential candidates to extend their reach beyond densely-populated areas of the nation and canvass in regions that, if the system of election were direct, would be neglected. It would, at least theoretically, be possible for contenders to canvass in only a dozen of the most populated states to win the elections; this would give them reason enough to not bother themselves with the remaining 38 states. However, the system of Electoral College makes it extremely unlikely for any candidate to gather sufficient number of electoral votes from only the twelve most densely inhabited states. A Democrat running for president could possibly depend on winning the votes of New York, Massachusetts, and California. On the other hand, a presidential candidate belonging to the Republican Party would most probably win at Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina. However, for ensuring that a candidate wins the minimum of 270 votes required for being eligible for the post of President, each candidate would not only have to win the large 'swing states' (e.g., Florida and Ohio in which there is a more even division of party strength is more evenly divided), but also relatively less-populated states. As each state is assured no less than 3 electoral votes, presidential candidates can't afford to pass over even the states with sparse population. Lastly, there remains the big issue regarding the U.S. federal system's health (Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness). Constitution makers saw that a significant safety net for individual freedoms exists in dividing control between state and federal governments; still, the recent trend has been ever-increasing federal power in the areas of governance that, in fact, come under the jurisdiction of states. If the system of Electoral College was to be done away with, states' power would diminish even further, undercutting one among the key supports of a system of governance that has survived, despite all the various challenges it has been confronted with in more than two centuries.

Support for Direct Popular Election of President

The U.S. follows a representative form of democracy, and not direct democracy: American citizens elect their representatives instead of voting on individual bills. However, there are numerous citizens who feel that directly voting for the President through popular election will be a fairer, more democratic method than the current Electoral College system. After all, through this system, a candidate may win majority votes, but still lose out on becoming President (Richards). Further, direct popular voting helps ensure that the votes of citizens have equal significance. There is heavy emphasis, in the system of Electoral College, on the alleged 'swing states'; further, typically, the system over-represents rural states' citizens. For instance, in the year 2004, candidates John Kerry and George W. Bush canvassed heavily in Nevada and other such states, while neglecting the political issues plaguing New York, as Kerry would undoubtedly win there, as per a UoP (University of the Pacific) report (Richards).

A shift towards direct presidential election would represent another step in the direction of democracy, and another collapse in the U.S. system of balances and checks. The Founders of the U.S. did take the option of direct presidential voting into consideration, but rejected it twice by great margins. They instituted the current delicate procedure of selecting elected officials, Electoral College members included, after extensive study and discussions with complete knowledge regarding its weaknesses and strengths (Newton). The system,…