>Without going into this too deeply it seems to me that you are making an assumption that I'm not sure is what the framers did.

True, I don't believe they factored the mathematical problem in, but I doubt that this was intentional, probably just inadvertent. I believe they would have preferred more accuracy rather than less (within their framework, of course), simply because it is less divisive. Also, at that time, a somewhat more complex tallying system would've been frowned upon just for practical reasons, whereas now it's not an issue.

>That is this; is a purely mathematically driven solution 'right'? That presumes what we call 'democracy' and it seems to me that the notion that we are a republic also could contain the notion that the electors, as "representatives of the people" also contain the same sort of general thought process that drove us to a bicameral set of institutions. That is, many if not most people are 'devils' not 'angels' and that a representative form of government helps us to be elevated above pure mob rule, as represented by the 'one man - one vote' thought process contained in today's definitin of the word 'democracy.'

Driven by an attempt to create more respect for the system, really - it is widely viewed as flawed already. Mathematics is only a tool to point out the flaw and remedy it. But it's only a minor adjustment already in use in two states, and made solely to correct a mathematical flaw, not to alter the system in a big way.

>Quite frankly, it seems to me that if we go down the road where each and every vote must count then we also, by virtue of elevating each vote to that level will at some point totally sink our republic in a neverending swamp of responding to the inevitable human error.
>
>I honestly think that a little bit of 'fudge' factor, built in to this notion of representation, is good.

I don't agree, Doug - you already have 2/3 of the public clamoring for a direct popular vote largely because they don't like the inaccuracy of the current system, not because they don't like the electoral framework. It only causes disrespect for our system of government when a popular winner is an electoral loser. I think my scheme is a way to keep the current framework relatively intact, and preferable to the attempts to do away completely with the electoral system that we will be seeing very soon. Which would you prefer, a little more accuracy, or a prolonged debate and struggle to completely overhaul/throw out the election system? :)