text: "winner- take all" system that awards electors to the winning presidential canididate." The winner- take all system is not a fair way to elect a president becuase of its biases. The candidates running for the presidency only visit the largly populated states in order to get their electoral points, for instance, most candidates go to Californa or Texas becuase those are the states that have for electoral points. But, by doing this all the smaller states that have less electoral points are never visited by the candidates, the voters then may have never seen an ad or campiagn for a certain candidates . According to Source 2: "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best laid defenses of the system are wrong", by Bradford Plummer, it states, "During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didnt see the candidates at all, including Rhode Island and South Carolina, and votes in 25 of the media markets didn't get to see a single campiagn ad". On the contrary, it is stated by Source 3: In defense of the Electoral College, it states," No reigon has enough electoral votes to elect a president." This is true, but candiadtes focus on larger states that will supply them with more electoral votes, and don't even visit or pay any attention the smaller states. I strongly negate the Electoral College.