In addition, the Electoral College's ability to efficiently serve its purpose provides a reason for its long existence. "An electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil." Moreover, never in the history of the Electoral College has a controversy developed in which the college rejected "an individual who had an undisputed majority of the popular vote." .
Most importantly, those who agree with preserving the Electoral College believe that election by popular vote, the alternative to the college, would create numerous deficiencies in the system. Election by direct popular vote would be "hazardous to the nation's health," said a concerned citizen. Liable to deceptions of the truth and too uniformed of the candidates, the people, voting directly, pose a threat to the system of electing presidents. Many people feel that the "popular election of presidents would work a diminution of the political power of racial and other minority groups in the nation's urban centers." On the other hand, the position in favor of ridding the nation of the Electoral College argues that the college serves no purpose. First of all, the present format of the Electoral College manifests the colleges" insufficient qualities. .
The current format of the college, giving the edge to the larger states, exhibits the inadequacies of it. "The Electoral College system, it is claimed, does not guarantee that the candidate with the most popular votes will win. Produces great inequalities in voting power among the national electorate contain a contingency election provision that is not only unrepresentative. That could also result in an impasse or in political duels, permits the will of the majority voters in a state or even in the nation to be thwarted through the constitutional independence of the electors. Permits the electoral decision to turn on fraud or chance in key states.
