What's wrong with the electoral college is that voters do not vote for the president, they vote for a slate of electors who, in turn, elect the president. The electors can be anyone not holding public office. To be picked depends on the state, some have conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the president pivked the electors themselves. The disaster factor is when we vote the electors can change their mind, "faithless" electors have occasionally refused to vote for their party's candidate and cast a deciding vote for who ever they pleased. I feel changing to election by popular vote is better because if a president wins, its because more people voted for him, not an elector.

The electoral college is unfair to voters because the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates dont spend time in state they have no chance of winning. In an event of a tie, the election would be thrown to the House of Representives, where the state delegations would vote on the president, and the Senate would choose the vice president. In 1976, a tie would have occurred if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voters in Hwaii had voted the oter way. The election is only a few swing voters away from catastrophe. The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational.