I think we should change the elction to popular vote. we should get what the people want not what the government or the system want. under the electoral college system, voters vote not for president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. a dispute over the outcome of an elecoral college vote is possible, it happend in 200 but, its less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate's share of the electoral college invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. The electoral college requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal.

No region has electoral cotes to elect president. So a solid regional favorite, such as romney was in the south has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful presidat. the residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfrabchished that the new president will have no regard for their intrests, that he really isn't their president.

The winner take all method of awarding electoral votes induces the canidates as we saw in 2012's election. voters in toss-up states are most likely to pay close attention to the campaign. they are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, average and the most thoughtful voters hsould be the ones to dcide the election.