Final answer:
The Electoral College is viewed as unfair by some because it allows for the election of a president who does not win the popular vote, disproportionally represents states, and discourages voter turnout due to the winner-take-all approach. Nonetheless, it was designed to protect small states and less populated regions, ensuring a balance of power within the federation. Discussions on reforming or abolishing the Electoral College continue in light of its perceived shortcomings and changing political context.
Step-by-step explanation:
Many people believe that the current Electoral College system is not fair because it allows for the possibility of a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. This undermines the principle of one person, one vote, leading some to argue that it does not reflect a fair representation of the people's will. States like California, for example, have a disproportionate number of electoral votes relative to their population, as seen in Figure 4.6.3 after the 2000 census, which can skew the balance of power.
The concept of fairness in elections is central to democratic values. However, supporters of the Electoral College argue that it protects small states and less populated regions, ensuring their voices are not overwhelmed by more populous states. Yet, due to the winner-take-all system in most states, the Electoral College discourages voter turnout in states where the outcome is seen as predetermined, effectively ignoring the votes of many citizens and making their voices feel unheard.
Lastly, reform movements such as the National Popular Vote highlight the discontent with the Electoral College system and propose alternatives like direct election by popular vote. Election reform debates often reference the foundational intentions of the Electoral College in the Constitution, with framers worried about an uninformed electorate, while today's context shows a vastly different political landscape, as well as public awareness and education levels.