Supporters of the current system claim it allows small states and small town America to have a say in the election. The candidates go to every corner of the battleground states and many people get the opportunity to meet and question them. Many feel that is a major benefit of the Electoral College. Another benefit many see is that it gives the winning candidate the majority of the vote. In the 1992 election Bill Clinton only received around 42% of the vote. However, due to the influence of Ross Perot he still won a convincing majority in the Electoral College. There is some benefit to winning a majority: the perception of 2/3 of the country not electing the president might be detrimental. Furthermore, it avoids the possibility of a nationwide recount. One can only imagine the result if the debacle in Florida in 2000 was repeated on a national level. Supporters contend that the current system does a better job representing...

Some of the larger states leaning in one direction could completely over power a large portion of the country. The Electoral College provides some balance to this.
People who are in favor of a direct vote contend many states are seemingly completely left out of the process. A solid blue state like California never gets to see either candidate. Neither does a solid red state like Texas. These are the 2 biggest states in the union and they don't get any attention from the candidates. Perhaps the most significant drawback to the current system is that it makes having a third party nearly impossible. If there was a legitimate third party, the Electoral College simply does not work as it is currently structured. As it is now, a candidate must win a majority in the Electoral College to win. If there is no majority, the House of Representatives votes to decide the president. If we have 3 parties splitting the Electoral vote, the House of Representatives would now decide the outcome.

References

Mak, T.…