text: The first thing to remember, is that the Electoral College is unfair and needs to be changed to the popular vote because the people should be able to vote who they want to be president. The author mentions in Source: 3 paragraph 18 that "A dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible-it happened in 2000-but it is less likely than a dispute over the popular vote." This proves that with the Electoral College in place that there may be a big contreversy about who should be the next president. Arguments would also break out between the political parties that are trying to elect their canidate president. With popualar vote you could avoid all these conflicts and disputes by letting the people elect the president outright with no questions. With this in mind, there should be no Electoral College because the author suggests in Source 3: paragraph 19 that "The Electoral College requires a presidential canidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his pularity in states that he knows he will win." A presidential canidate should be able to gain votes from his region because that is the states the canidate are more familiar with so, he will be able to campaign better in those states and if he becomes president he will be equal to all the other regions. You could avoid this with the fair method of popular vote.