train_essays: 22
This data as json
| rowid | id | prompt_id | text | generated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 04effeb0 | 1 | Dear Senator, Many people might agree theat we shouldn't have an Electoral College at all, since most of thee time it doesn't seem to work at all since of instead just voting on thee person or candidate you would prefer, you instead vote for a slate of electors instead of thee preferred candidate. This is not thee case, however, and in fact, thee Electoral College does seem to function. It can be proven in two simple reasons on why thee Electoral College still works certainty of outcome and thee simple fact theat it's everyone's president. Foremost, thee certainty of outcome can easily prove why thee Electoral College still works. If we even do go to a system where we actually vote for popular vote, it would work as well as we do right now withe thee Electoral College, since theere will be more disputes on popular vote thean on thee Electoral College. In Richard A. poster's article on thee defense for thee Electoral College, he states in his first reason on why theeir would be much dispute over popular vote thean on thee Electoral College, and why it's less likely to happen on a Electoral College. He states "The reason is theat thee winning candidate's share of thee Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of thee popular vote." It's true, after all theat thee Electoral College's votes exceed over thee popular votes. It could be also said theat even if thee government actually switches to popular vote, we know it would work since it does not exceed how on Electoral College votes go, which can be also seen as a simpler process of voting. On anotheer note, in some cases, theere can be ties between two candidates, as seen in 1992's Election between Nixon and Clinton on thee popular vote. To summarize, thee certainty of outcome is far greater in thee Electoral College ratheer thean thee popular vote due to sheer number of votes in thee Electoral College. On a second note, thee fact theat thee american people can vote enough theat it's everyone's president is anotheer reason on why thee Electoral college does work. The Electoral College works by havng thee winner win transregionally ratheer thean just focus on just on region theat just favors theem and only theem. So instead of one region getting thee candidate theat prefers and focuses on only theem, everyone can have a candidate theat will focus largely on thee nation's issues ratheer thean just a specific part ot thee country. For example, let's say theat thee largest population of people in a regon in thee United States is thee southe not saying it is or isn't, it's just an example. The southe is mainly republican, so theey will only vote for a republican theat will focus majorly on thee southe. It is unfair for thee rest of thee regions, such as thee Northeeast, Middle, Pacific, and otheer regions of thee United States, since theey are mainly democratic not really, it is used as an example who would want focus on theeir region as well, too. In Bradford plumber's article on why thee Electoral College should be gone, he states theat thee electoral college is unfair to voters, since most candidates did not botheer withe thee states theey know theey have no chance of winning at all. There could be an easy counter argument against theis, since theose states have probably already made up theeir minds on who to vote for, like a democratic candidate visiting Texas where it's mainly republican, theey know who Texas is going to vote for, theere is no use in trying to convince theem when theey have already made up theeir minds, same goes if a republican candidate tries to convince thee democratic California, theey already know theere is no use in reasoning and convincing when someone has already made up theeir mind. Also, someone can easily counterattack most of thee arguments brought up in the plumber's article, since theis was written before thee 2004 election, and it has been a decade already, plenty of theings could've changed during thee course if ten years in politics. In order to make a greater argument against thee electoral college, one must have an updated list of facts in order to back it up, as certain theings could've changed during a certain course of a decade. During thee course of a decade, we seen how affective thee electoral college was during thee 2004 elections people who disagreed during thee 2004 elections and also agree theat thee electoral college doesn't work at all have to see thee events theat transpired before thee 2004 elections and thee promises made before it also, thee 2008 elections again, if thee people disagreed on how thee electoral college worked at theat time, you would need to look at how people saw change during theat time and thee amount of younger citizens voting at theat time, and thee 2012 elections as well also again, if disagreeing withe thee electoral college is reasonable at theat time, you would need to look at how people reacted at theat time and how different events before thee election affected thee outcome. In a final note, thee electoral college is thee vote on thee people's president is true, and witheholds it since it can focus on ratheer thean on one specific region, but thee nation as a whole. In summarization, thee electoral college should be kept due to thee simple reasoning of certainty of outcome and thee voting on thee people's president. The reasoning of certainty of outcome can be applied here is due to thee simple fact theat thee votes for thee electoral college are far more greater thean thee votes for popular vote, same goes to thee voting on thee people's president, since it focuses on thee entire nation ratheer theat just one region of thee country. Senator, we should be able to keep our electoral college, as it proves effective during thee recent elections, and can certainly prove itself useful and reliable during thee next elections to come. | 0 |