The Electoral College is a cruel, pointless process that simply makes a percentage of votes, or all of them if you look at it that way, to mean nothing, and allows for circumstances like the 2000 election. There are plenty of reasons, and plenty of contradictions in "In Defense of the Electoral College: Five reasons to kep our despised mehod of choosing the President."

To begin, the winner-take-all system is very unfair to the voters. Voters in certain, dominated areas are supposed to know what they are voting for, yet get nothing to teach them? Not that it matters regardless, since every person within a state supports a political party, right, and, depending on your state's veiw, all Republicans/Democrats have no idea what they are voting for, correct? Like Bradford Plumer says, you shouldn't have to move to Ohio to be able to get a vote. There is also the point countered Mr. Posner's article, which is that those in party-dominated states will have a feeling their vote doesn't count, and he sais that one vote will not swing an election. Then why do you beleive an upside of the elecoral college is that those in more neutral states will feel their vote counts? Or do those in party-dominated states not matter, since those in neutrals think way more about their votes, and are the only ones you should trust, according to him? In practice, they are the only deciding factor .

There are also the many unwanted results from electoral colleges, such as the 2000 election's outcome defying the people. "What Is the Electoral College?" states you are voting for electors when you vote, but what is the point if they can simply defy you? It would be like if after the president was chosen, the Senate could overule him with a 1/5 vote. There is also the point in Plumer's article about the time Hawaii sent two slates, which forced the desicion to Nixon, who had to validate only the opponet's votes in fear of otherwise receiving bad publicity. There is also the strange way of resolving a tie, which boils down to the same thing as the winner-take-all system, except if more people support  it doesn't matter. It would be like if everybody in the  room wasn't alowed to vote, other than one voted, but everybody in the room agreed anyway for some strange, miraculous reason. (Of course, the one guy in the  next room doesn't agree, and completely takes out your vote, regardless of the fact that there were 30 people in this one.)

Now, there is the gregarious amount of contradictory statements that can be found within Mr. Posner's article. One has already been mentioned in the winner-take-all system paragraph. He also conveintly provides a dispute that had nothing to do with a close vote in the Electoral College, and everything to do with what is wrong with this winner-take-all system, being the 2000 election. In the same paragraph, me mentions how an Electoral tie is highly unlikely- as if a tie between the millions of US citizens is. His reason #5 can be easily solved by simply giving the presidency to the candidate who receives a plurality of votes, rather than a majority. Reasons number 3 and 4 both contradict reason 2 as well, stating that everybody gets a vote, only swing states should get a vote, and only bigger states should get a vote (even when there is a 51/49 split, where 51%=100%, mind you).

Thus, the Electoral College is completely unfair to voters, and should be abolished. Voters should not have to vote for other votes which could very well defy their's, why not just have the Electoral Cllege do all the voting then? It is both redundant and unfair.