<span>No it did not because the electoral college is necessary as it protects smaller (minority) states from larger (federal) states and it probably is one of the most efficient forms of elections</span>
The events surrounding the Election of 2000 justify changes to the Electoral College because Bush had won more votes in larger states which shows how successful he was, Gore only got some votes from smaller states. The Electoral College not changing determines the president and other campaign runners to pay close attention to larger areas for votes. Receiving votes from larger states will diminish the votes from smaller states, therefore why the Electoral College can not change. Many people will disagree with these statements as they think, its unfair votes from larger states cancel out votes from smaller states, however it is correct and should not be disagreed upon. The Election of 2000 use a method called, "butterfly ballots" for voting, although this method was stressful, it worked very well.
Anti- Federalists opposed the new constitution. Before we were under the articles of confederation which was a weak government. The new constitution was a good idea but some opposed and made the Anti-Federalists papers firing back on Alexander Hamiltons Federalist papers which promoted the idea of the new constitution.
The U.S. government forced the Native Americans to move to reservations in exchange for protection from attacks by white settlers. In addition, the Indians were supposed to be given a yearly payment that would include money in addition to food, livestock, household goods and farming tools. So basically white people were greedy for their land.
