Title: 3 Arguments for Keeping Electoral College Are All Wrong | Time
Headings: These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are Wrong
These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are Wrong
Ideas
The evolution of the Electoral College
Myth #1: Electors filter the passions of the people
Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored
Myth #3: It creates a mandate to lead
A way out?
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Content: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America. Even in the swing states where they do campaign, the candidates focus on urban areas where most voters live. In Pennsylvania, for example, 72 percent of Pennsylvania campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. In Michigan, all eight campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas, with neither candidate visiting the rural parts of the state. The Electoral College does not create a national campaign inclusive of rural areas. In fact, it does just the opposite. Myth #3: It creates a mandate to lead
Some have advocated continuation of the Electoral College because its winner-take-all nature at the state level causes the media and the public to see many close elections as landslides, thereby giving a stronger mandate to govern for the winning candidate. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 51 percent of the national popular vote but 91 percent of the electoral vote, giving the impression of a landslide victory and allowing him to convince Congress to approve parts of his agenda.