I don't really know what the context is here. If you can't be bothered to quote the context, then I can't be bothered to go hunt for it. The point about the EC is not so much the EC itself, as the winner-take-all translation of it. That part has no legitimate justification. For example my state was one o' them thar "battleground" states, which should be a bullshit term but in this perverse system means it was too close to call going into election day. Eventually all the voting was done and slightly more voters had cast ballots for Rump than had cast ballots for Clinton. The state then went to Congress and told them "every last voter in North Carolina voted for Donald Trump -- amazing, it was unanimous" which is entirely fiction. Polls should be irrelevant to how one votes. There should never be a single voter who figures "I don't like Rump, but my state is close so I'll have to vote for Clinton to block him". That's not voting -- that 's Tic Tac Toe. That's one of the several arguments against the EC "winner take all" system --- it makes us all dependent on polls to determine whether it's even worth getting out of bed that day (in a locked-blue or locked-red state, it isn't). And in a state that actually is close it channels votes into the Duopoly whether you want to go that way or not, as articulated above. Indeed the only voters who even have a window to vote outside the Duopoly (third party) are those who live in the locked states and in that event their vote is going nowhere anyway and amounts to a protest drop in the bucket. Whether intentionally engineered that way or not, that's the effect of the combination of the Duopoly with the winner-take-all EC. It perpetuates that Duopoly, it suppresses third parties, it makes us dependent on polling, and it negates the votes of millions who don't happen to have voted the same way their state did. It's a democracy steamroller.