Final answer:
Critics of the Electoral College argue it depresses voter turnout, fails to reflect the popular will, and unfairly favors smaller states. The system can result in the election of a president who did not win the popular vote, as happened four times in U.S. history. Calls for reform have included proposals to abolish the Electoral College or allocate electoral votes proportionally.
Step-by-step explanation:
Reasons Against the Electoral College
Some arguments against the Electoral College include its tendency to depress voter turnout and fail to represent the popular will. The system has been criticized for favoring small states where individual votes have more weight than those in larger states. This disparity is due to the mathematical distribution of electors, with the result that "safe" states receive little attention during general elections, ignoring the political voices of nearly 75% of the country.
Moreover, the existence of the Electoral College can lead to a situation where a candidate may win the presidency despite receiving fewer popular votes than an opponent, thereby questioning the principle of majority rule. Throughout history, there have been four instances where presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote—John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and George W. Bush. This has sparked calls for reform or abolition of the system, with alternatives such as proportional allocation of electoral votes or direct popular election being suggested.
Another point of contention is the presence of faithless electors who do not vote according to the results of their state's popular vote. Instances of such electors have occasionally contested the unequal representation in the Electoral College, or expressed disagreement with the state's vote through their rogue actions. These factors contribute to the debate about whether the Electoral College remains an appropriate mechanism for electing the president of the United States.