Electoral College is unfair because If you only have a couple of Democratic electors than the vote that everyone in Ohio , Alaska , South Carolina , is pointless and would only count for a couple of votes.

The fact that Electors can refuse to vote for a president and the party their on what the people picked that elector for is ridiculous, because the Elector could just pick the President on the Republican side.

Electoral Vote can be easily

Manipulated by the state legislature by "replacing the Democratic electors with electors who would oppose the President.

If a candidate only went to a place that has a lot of electoral votes and he knew those people were gonna pick for the Democrats then he basically has a huge advantage, and if the Republican candidate got a bunch of other states with 3-6 electoral votes then it gonna take him alot more states to catch up to the Democrat who only need California to boost him up

Tremendously .

The 3 states a candidate needs most to win is

California

Texas

Florida

If the Democrats got those 3 states by 122 electoral votes.

The winner-takes-all rule is horrible , it should be however many votes that candidate had so if Mitt Romney had the most electoral votes in California it shouldn't mean that he wins all the electoral votes it should just mean that he gets the 33 votes and Obama gets the other 22 votes.

Im in favor of either taking out Electoral votes or just making adjustments to it , so it's more fair for the people that are voting.