The Constitution has certainly created and helps sustain a democratic nation. It outlines and establishes a particular democratic government and set of laws. The men who wrote the Constitution were not elected. Certainly there were great leaders, but there were no formal electoral processes to select them and write the document. The Constitution was written behind closed doors and signed by the authors. It was not voted on in the same way that laws and bills are voted on today. The people of the fledgling American nation did not have the same ability to offer input and make selection that we enjoy today. With this, one could argue that this was particularly undemocratic. Should winning presidential candidates win with popular votes and not electoral votes? For this reason, the winning presidential candidates should be represented by the voters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As the architect of this country, the presidential candidate is chosen by the electoral college. The Electoral College is a group of people appointed by each state, who will formally elect the president and vice president of the country. And these electors are selected from the states' population, which is why some states have more representatives. The Electoral College system opens a Pandora's box of voters who do not vote as instructed by the American people. The Electoral College critically interprets each state's peer representatives. Not only is there a possibility that presidential candidates will win with popular votes, but they will not win in elections. For example, during the 2000 presidential election, the Republican candidate won the election, even though he lost the popular vote. With the electoral college this situation has become very likely. Presidential candidates who won in the electoral college were unfair to the representation of voters in the country (Dahl). He also went on to give an example of how a vote in Wyoming is worth about four times more than a vote in California (Dahl). Indeed, bills proposing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College are routinely introduced in every Congress (William). If presidential candidates are won by the Electoral College and lost in popular votes, do popular votes really matter? Do popular votes really matter, when should the Electoral College be removed and the system be the popular vote? With the Electoral College, voters wouldn't know whether their votes counted or not. They are not the ones who elected the presidential candidates, even if their name is on the ballot paper. With the way the electoral college is set up, they might even vote on your choice of candidate, or they might elect someone who doesn't represent you. Where voters lived could make their vote worthless due to the state's population. There will come a time when the presidential candidates are tied and that's when the popular vote will come. If this situation really occurs, then the House of Representatives and the Senate have the power to elect the president (Ginsberg). As Dahl states, for the Electoral College to represent the voters, it would be highly desirable for “the Electoral College to be abolished in favor of a direct election by popular vote” (Dahl). With the way the Electoral College presents who has the right to elect the president, the question that arises is: should we, as citizens, change the Electoral College? Please note: this is just one?