text: Not only does the Electoral College ensure equality for the candidates, but for the people as well. For example, in "The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong," Bradford Plumer whines about how, "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters," going on to say that, "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, focusing only on the tight races in the 'swing' states," (Plumer 13). However, Richard A. Posner makes a fair point: "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have trans-regional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president...[If a candidate with only regional appeal becomes President] the residents of the other regions are likely to feel disenfranchised - to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn't their president," (Posner 19). Moreover, Posner also writes that "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign - to really listen to the competing candidates - knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average...and the most thoughtful votes should be the ones to decide the election," (Posner 20).