First of all, the Electoral College is regarrded as a non-democratic method of selecting a president that should be over powered by declaring the canidate who gets the most popular votes the winner. The Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense, it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution.

So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential canidates in a campaign than a small state does. Most people vote for a presidant just because everyone else did, his/her race, his/her gender, and other things like that. Voting for that presidant with no knowlage about them or what they are capable of. But people tend to vote for that president out of majority because if 50% of the largest state voted "yes" for this president then we vote for him and then he/she is now president and is not doing anything right and they think that if you take away this or you do that it will solve the problem. But it won't, it'll only make things worse and upset a lot of people.

Under the electoral college system, voters vote for John Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors ? They can be anyome not holding public office. Sometimes statee conversations, sometimes the presidential candidates themsleves. The single best argument against the electoral college is that we might call the disaster factor.