text: Now, of course, the other view has to be adressed. As stated in the second article, "Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning... During the 2000 campaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all." This quote shows that the canidates might not go to a state they know they have no chance in winning. I can see how this could support changing to election by popular vote, and how it could be reasonable. If our president was chosen by popular vote, then he would visit all of the states, trying to win them over. However, there are some strong arguments against this. To begin with, one man would have to visit 50 states, and even if he only visited the majority, there is still a posibility that the state will not vote for him anyways, in the end. If we keep the Electoral College, then the majority of votes in a state would count, not his popularity. As a fourteen year old, I can relate this to highschool. A student can be the most popular student in the school, but they can also be the most rude and mean. And while another student may not be popular, they can be the nicest in the school. If the president was chosen by a popular vote, he might just end up being the worst thing that could happen to the country.