3 sources

Abby Elmer
Analysis of sources
I am writing my research paper on the electoral college and if it has been effective in the past along with if it will be effective in the future. My first source is from The Harvard Journal on Legislation. It is an article written by Stanley Chang in 2008 and is titled “Recent Development: Updating the Electoral College: The National Popular Vote Legislation.” This article goes in to depth of explaining what the electoral college is and how it works. The article states “Selection of the President is governed by a combination of the Constitution (specifically Article II and the Twelfth and Twenty-third Amendments), state law, and customary practice. Article II of the Constitution mandates election of the President through the Electoral College, which is composed of electors appointed by each state and the District of Columbia. n6 The number of electors for each state is equal to the sum of the number of senators and representatives to which that state is entitled.” After this brief summary of how the electoral college works, it goes into more depth and talks about how electors are chosen.
My second source is the article “The Indefensible Electoral College” written by Plumer Bradford in 2004 in the Mother Jones Online magazine. This article talks about the flaws of the electoral college. it talks about how over the years the electoral college has given more of a voice to some states than it does in others. It implies that the electoral college has never been completely effective because it forces candidates to campaign in only a few states rather than the entire country. Bradford writes, At the most basic level, the Electoral College is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad. If anyone has a good argument for putting the fate of the presidency in the hands of a few swing voters in Ohio, they have yet to make it.”
My final source is from Tara Ross in a 2004 article titled “Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.” She writes about how not only has the electoral college been effective, but it has also adapted well over time. She shows that not only has the electoral college been effective in the past but it will continue to evolve and be effective in the future.

I think that it's good that you're doing this topic on something you know and have looked into before. It never hurts to go into a paper with some background knowledge. I feel that your sources seem pretty accurate and reliable. I appreciate the fact that you listened to Dragseth and got sources that had information in opposition with your stance! The first source from the Harvard journal is really good because it explains what the electoral college is for readers who may not know. Good job so far

it very obvious that you know what you are talking about and this is a very interesting and always highly debatable topic which makes for a good research paper. What I would say is pick which side you are going to go with and stick to it. Don't be afraid to use sources that contradict your points but be able to back up why you disagree with them. Good work so far.

It is obvious that you know what you are talking about, and I like that you have both sides of the arguement because it gives people a choice on which side to take sides with. It is also obvious that you know which side you're going for. Keep working on this and expand on the topic so you get the complete topic and continue to expand on both sides.