text: Popular vote is a much better system than the Electoral College because unlike the Electoral College, it is actually fair for its citizens. America, which has suffered greatly to acheieve equality and liberty is held back by one thing-- the Electoral College. This is suffered by the United States' citizens because of the College's winner-take-all system. Through this, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races in the "swing" states. Source 2 refers back to the 2000 campaign, saying, "...seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all...and voters in 25 of the largest media markets didn't get to see a single campaign ad." How can a president be properly elected with this system in place? Source 3 attempts to discredit this claim, aguing, "Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign..." What they fail to realize is that those citizens may not even know who they are voting for! It is lucid that there is simply no valid argument for outting the fate of the presidency into the hands of a couple swing voters in a state. In addition, as far as being unfair goes, there are also unpredicatable scenerios that may occur in elections. These scenerios are far from fair to anybody. For instance, there is always the prospect of a tie in the electoral vote. If that were to happen, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives where voting would be handed over to state delegations. Plumer quotes, "Given that many voters vote one party for president and another for Congress, the House's selection can hardly be expected to...unfair." This would not happen if the U.S adopts the popular vote method, where the most popular candidate will win and reflect the citizens who placed him or her into office. The Electoral College is nothing other than unfair to the citizens who rely on it to elect their president.