text: Also, shouldnt the person who wins by the most popular vote be president? In source 2: "The Indefesnsible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong" it states "Al gore received more idividual votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the election, receiving 271 electorl votes to Gore's 266." Plumber is stating the fact that even though Gore won buy individual votes, Bush still became president because of his electoral votes. This is completely unfair though because Gore had more of the countries attention than Bush since he won by more votes. Bush only got the attention of the Electoral College because of the elector slate he had. Isnt that wha the electoral college looks at? The electoral slate? How about the public, they know what is best for their country and if the person with the most individual votes is it, then let it be it. Furthermore, in source 1:"What Is the Electoral College" the authore states "Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all the electors to the winning president." (paragraph 7). This is unfair because the candidates dont actually spend time in states they know they wont have a chance of winning in, but shouldnt all votes count? They never know if that state wants to pick them so why not show them who you are? In 2000, the candidates doing the campaign didnt send it to seventeen states. They didnt send it to Rhode Island and South Carolina including voters in 15 of the largest media markets didnt get to see a single campaign ad. Now thats not fair because everyone vote should count. If a person doesnt get to see then they wont vote but the person with the most votes should win. So why think that no one would vote? You never know.