text: First and foremost, when voters vote, they aren't really voting for their candidate, but a slate of electors, which in turn elect the president. Don't you think that this method is a little impersonal? As well as the matter of possibly having one's chosen candidate not win the presidency-even when they've won the popular vote- as a result of losing the electoral vote. According to 'The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong', the best argument against the electoral college is what we call the disaster factor. The system allows room for crisis; technically state legislatures are responsible for picking electors, who could always defy the will of the people. An example, would be in 1960, when segregationists almost succeeded in replacing electors of the Democratic party with new ones who opppesed John F. Kennedy; as well as the case of some faithless electors refusing to vote for their party's candidate and pick whomever they like.