text: Now, there is the gregarious amount of contradictory statements that can be found within Mr. Posner's article. One has already been mentioned in the winner-take-all system paragraph. He also conveintly provides a dispute that had nothing to do with a close vote in the Electoral College, and everything to do with what is wrong with this winner-take-all system, being the 2000 election. In the same paragraph, me mentions how an Electoral tie is highly unlikely- as if a tie between the millions of US citizens is. His reason #5 can be easily solved by simply giving the presidency to the candidate who receives a plurality of votes, rather than a majority. Reasons number 3 and 4 both contradict reason 2 as well, stating that everybody gets a vote, only swing states should get a vote, and only bigger states should get a vote (even when there is a 51/49 split, where 51%=100%, mind you).