text: The Electoral College system has been reported as "unfair, outdated, and irrational." (paragraph 14, lines 1 and 2). Most of what that statement does say is true, it is pretty unfair to the people who want to vote for their president, it's extremely outdated and needs an update fast, and its pretty irrational at times. Yet does that mean it can be bad? No, not really. As stated in paragraph 16, lines 1-3; "Each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party's nominee (and that trust is rarely betrayed)". The statment means that basically each slate chooses some electors that go with the popular vote, and they are shipped off to go and submit the votes and the electoral votes, where the task they are given is rarely betrayed, or not done. Yet, the word 'rarely' still sticks, and not many can just simply deny that it is not there. The rest of the statment in paragraph 16 continues onto lines 4-6, "[;however,] it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote." So in simple terms, you can get the electoral vote which can put you ahead, but you won't win with just that under your belt. The people still matter, and their vote can still count against you.