>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Incorrect assumption, Alex. If we did it that way, then the people of California could band together and vote whoever they wanted into office and there were be nothing anyone could do about it. People from Alaska and Rhode Island would never see one of their candidates in office because the population is too small.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>I don't agree. If the Democratic or Republican Parties (or any other for that matter) picks a guy from Alaska to be their front-runner (which is what happens under the current system), you are saying that Californians could all band behind him, regardless of party affiliation or ideology and the rest of the Country could do nothing bout it? Hogwash!

As Ken said we are a Republic. We have a representative system. What they should do IMO is something like the Senate. Every state has the same number of votes. In the Electoral College, it should be one state, one vote. Bush won 29 states (w/Florida and Oregon still up in the air). He should win.

Again, I say if you went strictly by popular vote (1 person 1 vote), then the interests of all are not met. Population is not evenly distributed across all states. 44% of the population of the US lives in only 7 states (CA, TX, NY, IL, FL, PA, OH). The interests of these states should not dictate policy for the whole.