text: My final contention is regarding how irrational and unfair the entire Electoral College is. In this, there is a type of winner-take-all system set in place. This means that, in most states, if a candidate wins the state, they take the Electoral College for the state. Because of this, candidates mainly focus on campaigning in states that they have a clear chance of winning. This is extremely unfair for many voters in the states that these candidates do not even visit. They would have no evidence of what to vote on in election. This could also change an election, with disastrous results. For example, in the 1976 election, a mere few thousand different votes in both Ohio and Hawaii could have led to a tie in the election. Ties are often fatal in the Electoral College system, as delegations in Congress determine a winner of the election. A counter to this claim may be how the winner-takes-all system encourages more campaigning in the toss-up states, where close attention is set upon the campaigning individuals. However, this still does not change the fact that other states are not receiving the proper amount of campaigning to prove a fair election.