Those in favor of the college, lean on the certainty of the outcome, as its vote protects the interest of small states. In the election of 2004, for example, President Obama received a majority of the electoral vote, but only half of the popular vote. While all of the United States reward the winning candidate with all of the electoral votes, a mere plurality would create a landslide victory of the electoral vote. Author, Tara Ross writes, “…appears to retain the small advantage, while giving greater weight to the popular vote. In reality, it would devolve into constant disputes about who gets the last electoral vote in each state. The Electoral College, by contrast, tends to magnify margins of victory and give certain election outcomes,” (Ross pg. 159). Lastly, just as those that favor the Electoral College believe that the President should have the support of the people, those that oppose it feel like the people should then be able to pick the President. The idea is that the personal vote does not mean anything because citizens may vote one way while the Electoral College votes another, thereby making the popular vote obsolete. In the Academic Journal “Who Should Elect the President? The Case Against the Electoral College,” the author writes, “In the minds of some, there is a question of whether our form of government as a federal republic is safeguarded by having the Electoral College. According to this view, the fact that this country is a federation of states, and that the Constitution assigns certain powers to the federal government while others remain with the states, is of more importance than direct election of the President based on the principle of one person, one vote,” (Jenkins pg.176). Nevertheless, the rules are fair and the objective is…