The Electoral College is unfair, outdated, and irration. Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. 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. Over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders.

The electoral college also has some good reasons to keep our despised method of choosing the president. In the 2012's election, obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes. Obama won cause of the electoral college. Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a lanslide electoral-vote victory in that state. So one good reason is the certainty of outcome.

Also another awesome reason is that the electoral college requires a presidental candidate to have transregional appel. No regions has enogh electoral votes to elect a president, so the south cant elect a president that will do something in favor with the south only. The electoral college avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. it avoids run-off elections.

My final answer is that i argue in favor of the electoral college. It would be hard to let every single citizem chose, because some people dont think about others and what it is good for all, people only think about themselfs and what it is good for themself. Plus the even thogh the president will win no matter if he/she won the popular vote. The electoral votes think for the state and what is good for the people.