The Electoral College is a process which consists of selecting the President and Vice President. I'm indefensible about the situation because 60% of people would want to have a direct election unlike the one we have now. In the article is says that "Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for John Kerry, you would vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry". This means that if you vote for someone then 9/10 you're going to have to vote for more people then you expect. Some voters get all tangled up and confused and vote for the wrong candidate. This debate against the electoral college is a disaster because not everyone would have the same idea about it, there's going to be someone for both sides to argue for. Another quote from the article is "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 in winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states." The counterclaim of this article was to pick a side and tell whether the electoral college is a good thing or a bad thing. I was indefensible about the whole situation because it's unfair and irrational, and it pushes more and more people away from voting, I would agree to abolishing the electoral college.