text: The electoral college system is very unfiar towards voters. Under this system voters aren't even voting for president, rather they are voting for a slate of electors who vote for the president. Ins't that the whole point of voting for president that you actually vote for president? Well under this system it is impossible. In source 2 it gives the example, "If you lived in Texas, for instance, and you wanted to vote for [John] Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes". As show in this statement when voters want to vote for president they dont actually vote for president, in turn they vote for electoral votes. This defeats the whole purpose of Americans voting for their president. This goes against the American ideal that American is a Democracy in which people vote for their leaders. Another reason why this system is unfair to voters is because of its winner-take-all system in each state. According to source 2 ", 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. During the 2000 capmpaign, seventeen states didn't see the candidates at all," This in turn is unfair to those people in the states where candidates didn't visit. As mentioned in source 1 "Most states have a "winner-take-all" system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate". This statement is not at all fair. It is saying that the electors of the winning candidates team are rewarded while the other electors on the other side are not. How is this in any way fair towards the oposing teams electors? All of this is caused by the winner-take-all system caused by electoral college, which again is unfair to many American citizens.