text: To start off the Electoral College is a game changer for Election Day. In the article " In Defenese of the Electoral College" the author states a good claim. Richard states " the reason is that the winning candidate's share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote". From this quote Richard points out the even when a candidate has a good amount of  popular vote it all comes down to the Electoral College. The reason is the Electoral College is part of the candidate's team, whether its Democrat or Republican. In the article from Richard he gave an example, " Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney". In this peice of information Richard clearly states on how the Electoral College is stronger then the popular votes. Now in the article "the indfensible Electoral College" which was written by Bradford has a different claim. Bradford states " because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates dont spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning". From this Bradford wants to express that the Electoral College is not fair to voters, and that it has cheesy methods. But even thought Bradfort disagrees with the method, Bradfort still stated the obvious. In the article Plumer states " taken shortly after Al Gore-thanks to the quirks of the electoral college-won the popular vote but lost the presidency". Although Plumer disagree with the electoral college, Bradford still notices on how the electoral college makes a huge difference. Basically the Electoral College is just a big game chnager on Election Day.