Replies

I argued this same issue with a friend of mine (one who voted for Nader in 2000!). The argument I used was:
Lets say you have 1 big state with 10 million people, and they all vote for Kerry.
And you also have 9 small 'insignificant' states, each with 1 million people, and they all vote for Bush.
Going by the popular vote, Kerry would have beat Bush soundly, but since the electoral college represents the interests of the STATE (which our founding fathers had the insight to understand), and not the INDIVIDUAL, Bush would win in a landslide. Our Constitution never would have been approved by all 13 original states if the smaller states knew New York and Virginia alone would really control things, thanks to their huge population.
Incidentally, that's also the reason we have 2 houses in Congress.

Lets say you have 1 big state with 10 million people, and they all vote for Kerry. And you also have 9 small 'insignificant' states, each with 1 million people, and they all vote for Bush.

Although the EC tends to dilute the votes of people in highly-polarized areas, in many cases the things sought by such people are best sought at the state or local level.

If a proposed piece of legislation is supported by 75% of the people in a few cities comprising 67% of the population and not supported anywhere else, would it be better for the measure to be passed nationwide (with 50.25% of the vote) or better for it to be passed only in those places that actually want it?

The former approach would make 50.25% of the people "happy"; the latter approach would make 83% of the people happy. Which is better?