text: Now, I have also read articles that contained letters that emphasized why the Electoral College should not be changed in any way, due to the "...Certainty of Outcome...Everyone's President...Swing States...Big States... Avoid Run-Off Elections..." (Posner, 3). These subtitles are points that Posner focused on that he believes can persuade why the Electoral College is somewhat efficient. In each of these points, I can counter that the certainty of the vote is false due to the fiasco of Gore and Bush in 2000, as well as the concept of the House of Representatives that I mentioned earlier as well. In the factor that Posner mentioned in his point of everyone's president, I do not find this very accurate due to the reason that our vote relies on a slate of electors, not us entirely, as it would in a popular vote. In swing states, it mentions in the article of Plumer that a winner-takes-all method is unfair to voters because electors ignore states that they do not have confidence in winning the vote. A major point that I disagree with would be the point that Posner pointed out with Big States, where he mentioned that,"The Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution..." (3). In this, I would argue that this is unfair, because of the inequality of representatives due to population, which is not the voter's decision. In the statement of Avoid Run-off Elections, Posner states that, "The Electoral College avoids that problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast" (3). I find this false due to the reason that the Electoral College is based on a different amount of voters and electors in each state, which in turn is viewed unfair because there is a factor of the swing states once again, explains that some electors choose states over another which lets us show how unfair the Electoral College is, generally speaking.