[jnarcus]

Apparently the Slimes does not understand the reasin that our founders set up the elecotral college. Small states are NOT over represented if anything they are under represented. If you want to go to a straight popular vite then last time around you would have ended up with Gore. The whole point of the electoral college is to make candidates work for votes from states and areas they would otherwise pass up. Look at the Bush Gore map of 2000....Gore came dangerously close to winning by focusing on the large population centers thus leaving out MOST of the rest of the country. The electoral college is massively better than ANY other possible voting suggestion that I have ever read....Read some history, under stand the nature of a republic, keep the electoral college

[Travis McGee]

Without the EC, candidates would just focus on NY, CA, TX, FL and a handful of coastal mega states. Soon, the fedgov representing these mega states would carve up the "hinterland" into a series of virtual colonies.

Of course, the NYT would love this outcome.

The founding fathers were brilliant.

[inkling]

Absolutely. If the popular vote was all that counted, candidates would campaign in the Northeast and the West Coast, with the occasional layover in Chicago. Screw the rest of the nation. It's a terrible idea.

[TeleStraightShooter]

Good post

And US Senators need to be elected by the state Assembly's like they were 100 years ago.
The original design by our founding dads of Senators being answerable to the power structure of each state makes more sense than appeals to base populist instincts they must now make.

[Duke Nukum]

Wisconsin has two senators and neither of them represent our state's interests. I don't know what they do.

Whereas Kerry and Kennedy have sucked up millions of tax dollars from the rest of the nation for the Big Dig.

[undeniable logic]

They are confused... We are a Republic not a Democracy. If they understood that we are a Republic, it would all make sense.

[Jim Robinson]

I think they understand very well.

[snopercod]

At least you get it. Thanks.

[tom h]

Good insight. And there is several more points to make, subtle but true.

1) No one will ever win the EC but lose by even a significant though small margin, say 3-5%. It's never happened and never will.

2) The Founding Fathers basically wanted close elections, or electoral ties, to be won by the candidate that won the most states. In baseball, ties go to the runner. In Presidential elections, ties go to the candidate with the widest appeal across all states, large and small. This means that any close election, with each candidate within 1-2%, can go either way.

3) There has also been a longstanding sense that voting standards are different in every state. You can't have a national election without a common standard for eligibility, determination of flawed ballots, etc. The Constitution defers to states much of the right for determining eligibility -- of course this was modified by the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s to eliminate disenfranchisment of Blacks.

By the way, analyses have been done that prove your point. Without his huge majorities in two single cities -- Los Angeles and New York -- Gore would have lost the popular vote by 2,000,000. That means effectively that LA and NYC would have determined the election outcome.

[BabsC]

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system.

Obviously doesn't know his history.....

But then again....you stated

The whole point of the electoral college is to make candidates work for votes from states and areas they would otherwise pass up.

Actually prior to the 16th and 17th amendments we were still practically a representative republic divided into the 50 parts that make up the federal part called the United States of America. Something happened in 1913, (build up to WWI, or breakup of Standard Oil, something) to cause us to let those two slip by.