text: Admmitedely, the winner take all system is a fair way of deviding the votes. In the first article "What Is the Electoral College?" by the Office of the Federal Register, the author asserts, "Most states have a 'winner-take-all' system that awards all the electors to the winning presidential candidate." If a presidential candidate spends alot of time, effort, and money in a campaign for a "swing" state; he should be awarded all the votes for winning that state. It is a high risk but high reward to spend all that time and money to only earn sixty percent of the votes. That is why a "winner-take-all" is crucial. To add on, the author of the first article mentions, "Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate's political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are..." This is saying that a candidate chooses his or her electors, and you vote for the electors to then choose the candidate you voted for. However; the people should have the right to directly choose the candidate of his or her choice. Therefore, the elecoral college is outdated and must be eliminated.