text: On a second note, the fact that the american people can vote enough that it's everyone's president is another reason on why the Electoral Colllege does work. The Electoral College works by havng the winner win trans-regionally rather than just focus on just on region that just favors them and only them. So instead of one region getting the candidate that prefers and focuses on only them, everyone can have a candidate that will focus largely on the nation's issues rather than just a specific part ot the country. For example, let's say that the largest population of people in a regon in the United States is the south (not saying it is or isn't, it's just an example). The south is mainly republican, so they will only vote for a republican that will focus majorly on the south. It is unfair for the rest of the regions, such as the Northeast, Middle, Pacific, and other regions of the United States, since they are mainly democratic (not really, it is used as an example) who would want focus on their region as well, too. In Bradford Plumers's article on why the Electoral College should be gone, he states that the electoral college is unfair to voters, since most candidates did not bother with the states they know they have no chance of winning at all. There could be an easy counter argument against this, since those states have probably already made up their minds on who to vote for, like a democratic candidate visiting Texas (where it's mainly republican), they know who Texas is going to vote for, there is no use in trying to convince them when they have already made up their minds, same goes if a republican candidate tries to convince the democratic California, they already know there is no use in reasoning and convincing when someone has already made up their mind. Also, someone can easily counterattack most of the arguments brought up in th Plumer's article, since this was written before the 2004 election, and it has been a decade already, plenty of things could've changed during the course if ten years in politics. In order to make a greater argument against the electoral college, one must have an updated list of facts in order to back it up, as certain things could've changed during a certain course of a decade. During the course of a decade, we seen how affective the electoral college was during the 2004 elections (people who disagreed during the 2004 elections and also agree that the electoral college doesn't work at all have to see the events that transpired before the 2004 elections and the promises made before it also), the 2008 elections (again, if the people disagreed on how the electoral college worked at that time, you would need to look at how people saw change during that time and the amount of younger citizens voting at that time), and the 2012 elections as well (also again, if disagreeing with the electoral college is reasonable at that time, you would need to look at how people reacted at that time and how different events before the election affected the outcome). In a final note, the electoral college is the vote on the people's president is true, and withholds it since it can focus on rather than on one specific region, but the nation as a whole.