In theory, this system should work, and it has worked—most of the time. a few times, however, the system has failed. in these cases, the candidate with fewer popular votes gained enough electoral votes to win the election. this occurred during the 2000 presidential election when more people voted for al gore, but george w. bush earned more electoral votes and became the president. what causes such a breakdown in the system to happen? let's return to the example of california and alaska. a single vote in california has the power to override thousands of votes in other states. imagine that only one person in california casts a vote for candidate a. that candidate wins the popular vote in california 1–0. he or she gets all of california's 55 electoral votes. across the country, thousands of voters in maine, new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts, connecticut, rhode island, new jersey, and delaware cast their votes for candidate b. not one voter casts a vote for candidate a. these states have a combined 52 electoral votes, which is not enough to beat california's 55. how can the leaders of our country believe that this system is fair? the author of this editorial supports his argument's validity a) by using the bandwagon rhetorical strategy. b) by quoting prominent politicians who are opposed to the use of the electoral college. c) by providing poll results that show most americans are opposed to the electoral college. d) by demonstrating through example how one state can unfairly dominate another state's votes in the electoral college.