>>The more I think about, the more I'm favoring doing away with the Electoral College. I'm beginning to think that it no longer serves it purpose and ultimately demeans the individual vote for president. Closely contested states become "battlegrounds" with more emphasis placed on them than others. The media watches these states in an effort to determine the outcome of the election.
>>
>>I know some (as I've seen in this thread) will say, "but this isn't a democracy, but a republic", but that's not true either. In in reality it's a Democratic Republic or a Republican Democracy, since it utilizes principles from both.
>
>Agreed. I'm in favor of the overall popular vote winner being the winner ( if accurately counted :-) ) since it would seem to better represent the will of the people as to who they want to "rule" over them in the Republic. To me, in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," the people should have as much input as reasonably possible. But I imagine many would give me a special "salute" for espousing this position. :-)

< g >Well, not from me.

Before I go on, I do want to state something to head off folks jumping to some sort of conclusion about how I voted or my politics. So this isn't directed necessarily to you, Bill.

Don't jump to those conclusions. One might be very mistaken if they did. I don't discuss politics when it comes to ideologies.

Bruce's statement that it may turn out that Bush may end up winning the popular vote brought a thought to mind. "What if, then, Gore wins Florida and therefore the Presidency? What if, and we'll never know, the media's premature announcement of his (Gore's) winning the state on election kept some Bush voters from voting and influencing their state's electoral vote? It could very well be that some other closely contested state went into the Gore column rather than Bush's as a result." Sure, this is conjecture, but it wouldn't exist with a pure popular vote.