Some argue that we need the college so the smaller states will be potected. But the curent system still favors the larger states. The only states that are visited by candidates are those with the most electoral votes or those that the candidates feel are in play. I live in Indiana, a state ignored during the entire campaign. Yet with 11 votes we have more electoral votes than most of the states in the union.
I voted for Bush and am glad he won, but I would have loved the opportunity to have heard him speak or to feel as if he cared what happened here. I don't like the "all or nothing" distribution system, which gives the winner all the electoral votes even with a 1 vote majority in the popular vote. This essentially takes away the popular vote from those people who vote for the losing candidate.
Look it at this way. If you examine the break of the popular vote by counties, AND, if the electoral votes had been divided according to percentages, then the mandate Bush has rightfully claimed would be overwhelming. Take Illinois. Cook County determines the entire outcome for the state of Illinois. Cook County is a strong bastian of Democrats, but almost every other county went to Bush.
Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support that statement?
Sad to see supposed "conservatives" such as yourself who just don't get it. Or, are you? Are you a conservative?