Abolishing the Electoral College may be the best choice because the most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the elecetoral college. Also at the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters.

If a tie occurs the election would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where state delegations vote on the president. Each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representating 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represents 35 million voters. Because of many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, The House's selection can hardly reflect the will of the people. For exapmple a tie would have occured in 1976 if a mere 5,559 voters in Ohio and 3,687 voter in Hawaii had voted the other way.

The electoral college can be unfair to voters because the winner-take-all syntem in each state, candidates fon't spend time in states the know they have no chance of winning. For example during the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad.

The elctoral college can have many good things but it still is not good enough for us to keep it. If the winner-tak-all systm didn't exist candidates would spend time in states even if they know they have no chance of winning, because they will not lose anything or maybe have at least a liitle chance of winning.