With the Student Association elections now at a close, I felt it would be a good time to discuss how the election for the United States president is conducted, as well as the surrounding controversy.

Though it has been a part of our country and the foundation of our electoral process since the writing of the Constitution, the Electoral College has been notorious for being the center of debate between politicians and layman alike. The process by which the United States would choose a president was debated for an enormous amount of time during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, and it wasn’t even known whether we’d have a single person in an executive position at all.

Despite the endeavors of our founding fathers and the amendments made to the college, there are those that would argue that the choice was simply made in a rush and that the Electoral College is a threat to the democracy that they had built. Those against the college suggest direct election instead, not realizing the risks involved with such a choice.

In reality, the United States Electoral College ensures that all of the American people, each with his or her own unique ideals, are heard.

If a direct election was used instead of the Electoral College, then the majority would, in effect, dominate the minority. Even if some people feel that is simply the way a democracy is supposed to work, I would not like to have a president who can just ignore a large portion of people, such as farmers in the Midwest, simply because there is not a high enough number of them.

Besides, the absolute majority is not always absolutely correct.

It would disgust me to see the winners of elections being chosen from a group of people who fought to add the most toxins to the already poisonous airwaves in an effort to see who could discourage more people in the support of his or her opponents through the use of mudslinging. I would rather see a candidate who has the goal of winning the hearts of a unified (well, as much as possible) America.

Fortunately, with the Electoral College, the latter is the case. It promotes pluralism, federalism and the participation of all, while preventing manipulation. Being that each state has electors that are just as important as any others, each state is ensured a voice. Grassroot engagements and the participation of the people are promoted because, with the Electoral College, each state only gets to vote one way. People of all ideologies are encouraged to partake, so that their ideals are the ones that get the votes.

This is not to say the college couldn’t use some reforms. Removing the frivolous human elector would prevent faithless electors and remove the need for a national standard in the way electors are chosen; currently it depends on the state, and the methods vary greatly. Even so, the college has done quite well in such a complicated country and, with a few changes, it could be even more effective.

People need to stop putting it in bad favor without realizing that our indirect democracy creates a strong democracy.