Rhetorical Summary

Every year millions of Americans go out to vote in the United State’s presidential election. Although, as many do not understand, the American government still use a system of electoral college which focuses on representation based on location and not majority choice. In this New York Times editorial written by The Editorial Board, the author worked to persuade American voters to change the current voting system. They appealed to a great variety of ethos and logos that gave good supporting evidence to strengthen the argument throughout.

The Editorial Board captivates American voters by first convincing them by effectively appealing to ethos.The author uses a quote from our current president Donald Trump: “I would rather see it where you went

Using information to state why the other side is wrong rather than repeating evidence to support the central claim is an important aspect of this. The Editorial Board does this with the following: “That’s wrong as a matter of history: the framers of the Constitution were concerned primarily with ensuring that the president wasn’t selected by uneducated commoners.” By clearly stating “That’s wrong” and then further explaining why with commentary, the author effectively utilizes the purpose of the refutation by countering the idea that the current voting system is in need of change instead of giving support to his/her own. With this same quote, by saying: “ensuring that the president wasn’t selected by uneducated commoners,” the author expresses use of logos in essential commentary to support his/her claim made against the outdated voting system. The Editorial Board is showing American voters that past politicians undervalued the American people as uneducated, but that this should not be the case anymore. They utilize logos to make American voters feel like they need to be valued in the voting system, so, logically, each vote should matter separately as it does with the majority choice system The Editorial Board it