>This will change drastically over the next couple of hours (and days), but it's interesting to note the difference between electoral and popular votes:
>
>Obama:
>Electoral Votes: 64
>Popular Vote: 48% 3,497,217 votes
>
>Romney:
>Electoral Votes: 40
>Popular Vote: 51% 3,643,386 votes

As it turned out Obama had comfortable margins on both counts. The popular vote was close, 50% to 49% for Obama. The electoral vote will not be so close even if Florida is overturned on a recount.

It's time to pitch the electoral college. I realize there are many reasons it is unlikely that will happen. The biggest one is that it will require a Constitutional amendment requiring passage by a large majority of states (67? 75?), many of them being small states who have a disproportionate influence under the current system. But it is practically the definition of an anachronism. When it was enacted in the early days of our country the average man had little information about the candidates. Most early Americans were agrarian and had little information about the outside world at all. That has obviously changed a great deal. There was also skepticism about the ability of the "common man" to make sound choices. So we wound up with this Hamiltonian system that our betters would vote for us. That is by the boards now, not to mention the many disenfranchised voters (women, non-whites) who were not represented at all. This is an 18th century tradition which no longer serves any useful purpose.

A subtler but IMO more important change is that it really would become one man, one vote. Under the electoral college system only a dozen or so states, the so-called battleground states, really matter. It's rare when the candidates even visit the other states. What motivation do residents of those states have to go out and vote other than a commitment to the democratic process? They know their votes don't matter.

It's time for a change in the name of fairness and equality.