text: Secondly, if it were up to a popular vote, the president might simply win because he (or she) is a regional favorite. As stated in the third article, paragraph 19, "...because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president." Also in the paragraph, it states that no region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. If the president was decided by popular vote, however, can you imagine what it would be like? Take Romney, for example. He was a solid regional favorite in the South. Romney knew that there was no incentive to campaign heavily in the South, because he would not gain any electoral votes by increasing his plurilaty in states he knew he would win. If popularity decided the president, residents of the other regions might feel like their vote would not count, and that the president would have no regard for their interests. Say that popularity did actually determine a winner. While most regions might vote for a certain presidents, the ones that did not would feel like that the man running the country wasnt really "their president". However, Mr. Senator, if the Electoral College was to stay, this problem would never exist. With the system we have now, the people vote for your state's electors when they vote for the president. Most states also have a "winner-take-all" system. Therefore, the canidate with the most votes in a state win's that state's electors. This lets the voting be even, fair. A popular vote would make the voting unfair to those who did not want that president.