text: Some may argue that the chance of an elector not casting his or her vote that he pledged to is very slim. Why would you even be ok with taking such a chance? It's better to be one-hundred percent sure of what will happen instead of ninety-five percent. Also, since most states in the U.S. award electorial votes by a winner-takes-all basis (according to Source 3), if one side of the votes wins, even by a slim margin, they get all the votes. This seems unfair, since if they won by a slim margin at least some of the state thinks it should be a different vote. It would make more sense if the states awarded both sides of the vote if it was a close win for one side or the other, but they would award the true winner with more votes than the narrow loser.