text: First off, the Electoral College system is unfair to states. Candidates for president don't spend time in states that they know they have no chance of winning in. This is due to the Electoral College morphing the states into a winner-takes-all system as said by the Office of the Federal Regiser in "What is the Electoral College?". This means that the winning popular vote in each state wins the electoral vote for that state as well. The thing is, however the number of people voting compared to the number of electoral votes is unfair. I am aware that the number of electoral votes comes from the state's population, but imagine this; California, which has 55 electoral votes gets visited by this to-be-president and wins it over only by a small margin. Wyoming, which has 3 electoral votes, doesn't get a visit by this candidate because he thinks that 55 votes is more important than three and a large majority of this state votes against him. The candidate then loses three electoral votes, but wins 55. Sounds like everything works out well right? Wrong. The other half of the voters in California combined with the majority of voters in Wyoming could have taken the vote if it weren't for the Electoral College. With popular vote the candidates would have to actually care about the states like Wyoming instead of ingnoring them with Electoral College. With the popular vote system everyone has a say.