by Matthew Garrett

Created on: April 14, 2009   Last Updated: April 16, 2009

This has always been a discussed question in my school, at my home, and in my life.

Personally, I never liked the idea of having someone else be in charge of my president. I want to feel like my vote matters. But the underlying questions to be asked are, "Aren't we, albeit indirectly, already in charge of who is president? Don't we vote for the people in the Electoral college?" It's the transitive property of president-electing! If we vote for those who vote for president, we are in charge of who is our president. So why not just bypass the middleman? But, before your opinion is made, consider this: There would be pros and cons to both sides. Electoral Vote: Pros: Do I really trust the idiots next door to make the decisions of the country? The uneducated that surround you matter. Their votes for whoever they want, because they believe anything told to them, will make a difference. ("Yes, Hitler's definitely the way to go! He'll stop communism!") Cons: Your vote for president hardly matters. Other people are in charge of what happens. Not a true democracy, huh?

Popular Vote: Pros: The people get what the people want, not what some old dudes in suits want. Cons: Idiots can vote. Idiots put dictators in power. It's bound to happen again if we let it happen.

It's a hard topic to take a side on. Both sides have advantages to them, but at the same time, both sides have disadvantages. It's a difficult thing to come to a conclusion on.

In a perfect world, you should have to take an IQ test or something along those lines to prove that your vote should matter, and that you're not just voting for this guy/girl because they look pretty, or promised to save the whales. Don't get me wrong, save the whales by all means., just don't vote because someone said that they would.

I believe that the President should be chosen by popular vote, but that a voting license with more strict rules should be the way it goes. It'll let the people get what they want and ditch the middleman, but avoid the issue of the masses voting for someone who shouldn't be in office, but will get in because they appeal to them, ("I'll lower taxes, surrrrre! And you want a pony? Surrrrre!" and promise the world). That's happened before in global history and is bound to happen again if steps aren't taken to prevent it. Within reason, and in theory, popular vote would work great as long as there is a force keeping people who will ruin the purpose of popular vote from doing the exact opposite. In a perfect world, popular vote would be the better situation, but people whose votes are useless should not be allowed to vote. But, as I said, it's a matter of opinion.

Learn more about this author, Matthew Garrett.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.