text: The electoral college is not only obsolete, unnesessary and parasitic, but also unfair to many voters. The main ways this unfairness can be identified are extreme, and each really deserve a paragraph of their own. Let us imagine a scenario: a democrat lives in a mostly republican state. He goes to vote. His vote is passed along, checked off, and placed aside for a time. When all of the votes are in, the republican votes outweigh the democrats. Now, our democrat's vote, his wife's vote, the democratic guy who works at 7-11 down the street's vote, Joe's vote, Bob's vote, Billy's vote, "That girl Suzie's" vote and ALL THE DEMOCRATIC VOTES IN THE STATE are all, essentially, thrown into the furnace, and will do so next election, the election after, and essentially every mostly republican election after that. In a popular vote without the barrier of the Electoral College, all those votes would flow into the pile for whichever canidate they voted for. Then the pile would be counted, divided into the total votes, and percentaged. then, at lest the votes could count for SOMETHING, other than a waste of time. But wait! there's more. Most states have an all-or-nothing ideal, meaning if politician A got 51% of the votes in California, while politician B still got 49%, Politician A gets 55 votes in the Electoral College, while politician B gets squat. This does not represent the best interests of many of the people in that state. this is unfair. It also means that larger states have the advantage, because they get more votes, like California (55), Texas (38), and Florida (29), while smaller states get less, such as Alaska (3), Rhode Island (3), and Hawaii (4). Just to add insult to injury, this means that larger states are more fought over by politicians, leaving smaller states practically ignored. This is unfair to people in the Dakotas or Montana have no information to base their votes on, instead just picking a canidate by mainly party affiliation. the biggest political battles are in fact fought over the biggest states, in the forms of advertisements and propaganda. Although the propaganda is truely just that: propaganda, there is some truth in them, and the voters in bigger states are more well versed in the political and practical advantages of one canidate over the other. Article 3, while defending the Electoral College, in fact condems itself, by saying that voters in so called "swing states," where there is no true dominant party, are likely to be given the most information on the canidates as they battle over who will get that state's votes in the college. The same thing can be said for the bigger states, because neither politician can really afford to let the other gain the upper hand in that state. Therefore smaller states, or states that are basicly marooned on one party are ignored or disregarded as worthless and unattainable in any case, so they widthold information from them, forcing them to vote blindly in favor of whichever party they choose, which votes may be discarded anyway. With an uncensored popular vote, the political canidates will be forced to advertise for all of the united states, instead of just the bigger or indevisive states. this will also remove all of the unfair advantages from the larger states, including more information as well as an unfairly weighted voting system.