text: To begin with, according to source #2: The Indefensible Electoral College: Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong "At the most basic level, the electoral college is unfair to voters. Because of the winner-take-all system in each state, candidates don't spend time in states they know they have no chance of winning, focusing only on the tight races on the "swing" states", this means that in some states one candidate might have a better chance of winning than the other candidate and even though a candidate is at disadvantage because the other takes all the votes because of the electoral college that candidate might win and the people of that state will not even know who is this winning candidate until they see him on tv as an actual prsident, which probably means that the winning candidate won't help that state because he does not know well enough about it. Additionally, acording to source #3 "The Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney ws in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plularity in states that he knows he will win", this means that in order to win the presidency a candidate must get to know other regions but because in this case Mitt Romney vs. Barrack Obama, Obama was the regional favorite for the North Romney was at a disadvantage, which is what the Electoral College ultimately wants.