text: According to Plumer, "Perhaps most worrying is the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote" (2). This indicates how the tie could carry the vote to the House of Representatives, where the federal judgement takes place of voting for the president. Not only this, but Plumer also stated,"Because each state casts only one vote, the single representative from Wyoming, representing 500,000 voters, would have as much say as the 55 representatives from California, who represent 35 million voters" (2). This statement from Plumer strongly imposes the knowledge that this tie carried to the House of Representatives would hardly reflect the will of the people due to census of the population. This article highlighted that the vote in 2000 where the system actually seemed to flaw when Gore recieved a higher popular vote than Bush, however, Bush received a higher electoral vote. In this situation, is this truly fair? This example dipicts how the vote is truly determined on a group of people from the population rather than a vote depending upon the entire nation itself. Plumer stated, "...the electoral college is unfair to voters...swing states..." (2). This brings us the idea of the swing states and how the candidates in the winner-take-all system do not bother to go to states they know that they have no chance of winning, which harshly reveals that some votes may be biased from the electors ignoring other states. "It's official: The electoral college is unfair, outdated, and irrational" (Plumer,2). This concludes how biased the Electoral College can be when it comes to ties, representatives, the disaster factor, and a great multitude of concepts and situations where the Electoral College has flawed.