By Kay Maxwell, Robert Hardaway
YES
When the Constitution was written, the typical voter had few opportunities to learn about presidential candidates, so
the job of choosing the President was given to the Electoral College: Electors, who were appointed by their states,
were better educated than average citizens, who were not thought capable of making an informed choice.
Today, with universal education, TV, radio, newspapers, and the Internet, voters can learn about candidates for
themselves. And they should be trusted to choose their President.
The Electoral College is unfair in several ways. First, it gives more weight to votes cast in small states. (Each state's
electoral votes are equal to the number of members it has in the House and Senate combined.) Second, because the
Electoral College is "winner take all" in all but two states (Maine and Nebraska), people who disagree with the
majority in their state are not represented. Finally, the system allows the election of a President who does not have
the support of a majority of voters.
Without the Electoral College, candidates would campaign to get as many individual votes as possible in every state,
instead of focusing on states that provide key electoral votes. Each vote would make a difference and voters would
feel they truly had a stake in the elections, which could lead to increased voting across the country. With a system of
direct election, all votes would be equally important and equally sought after. We need to abolish the Electoral
College and make our presidential elections one person, one vote.
-Kay J. Maxwell
President, League of Women Voters
Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: Read the above opinion that provides a "Yes"
answer to the essential question and answer the questions below:
1. What is the author claiming?
2. What evidence does the author use to support their claim?
3. What is the reasoning behind using the evidence to support the claim
(make a connection between the two):