It is the most efficient way to vote and it always seems that the best man for the job comes into office to become president of the United States and govern our country. Even with the serious flaw of “winner takes all,” it offers the most reasonable possibility of choosing the best candidate to become the next leader of our country. What other option could come close to overall constituency equality? A popular vote? People would become even more biased than they already are. Why risk this by going to the popular vote? In 2000, all the votes in Florida had to be recounted, and that took a long time. What if we had to do a national recount? We could be without a president for months! What if a country attacked us in those months? We would be in complete disarray and would be destroyed by that country! (debate.org) In the Electoral College the popular vote would be no better because the entire election would be biased. People would vote for a candidate for all the wrong reasons such as race, gender, appearance, personality, and popularity instead of what the individual could do to improve our country. Fixing the constituency is a necessity and it is only a flaw that is causing it to become more respected. Change the concept of the winner, take all and you will have an incredible system for deciding who will win the next presidential elections