>>I think the Maine/Nebraska approach makes some sense. IIRC correctly, the electoral votes are divided by congressional district with the state-wide winner getting the two extras. That seems to me to give a much better picture of what's going on, to give more people's votes value than the current system, and still to give small states some power so they're not totally overwhelmed by the large.
>>
>
>The small states are hardly overwhelmed by the large. A vote in Montana counts many times what a vote in California counts, based on ratio of the states' electoral votes and percentages of the U.S. population. Without an electoral college everyone's vote would count equally IN THE NATIONAL ELECTION <g> no matter where they live. "One man, one vote" -- kinda has a ring to it, doesn't it? <g>

Yeah, it does, but in fact, we live in a republic, not a direct democracy, and that's a good thing. If you think about some of the areas where the public has lagged behind the policy (almost anything related to race will do), you can see that letting the majority rule unreservedly is a bad thing.

You probably remember the term "the Great Compromise" from school. It refers to the decision to create a bicameral legislature, with one house determined by population and the other by statehood. This was to prevent the large states running roughshod over the small.

The Electoral College serves the same purpose. It ensures that the small states aren't totally disregarded in presidential selection. However, the current winner-takes-all system used in most states does seem terribly unfair.

Tamar