>Well, I'm all for accuracy as long, of course, as it does not trample on the notion of State's Rights. I posted a few suggestions on how I thought using today's technologies could be made to do this a few days back. Still it seems to me that the notion ot a representative government is still superior.

Agreed on the States' rights, this would only be a "suggestion" made by perhaps US Congresspersons and Dem/Repub party elders, to the governors and state legislatures to adopt as they see fit. Agreement among a few large states would probably get the ball rolling everywhere...

Yes *some* representative govt is vital - it is clearly impractical for citizens to vote directly on complex legislative enactments at all levels of govt. At the presidential level, however, I'm not so sure that electoral representative election is the best tecnique over popular vote, call me "undecided" on that. But I would prefer to err on the conservative side and keep the electoral method, since we have a system that is in close to perfect working order, barring the imprecision in close elections. A shift to a popular vote method would be:

a) Very difficult and contentious to enact.
b) A fairly radical change, and the unknown consequences to campaigns, states, and voters might be rather enormous, and not entirely good.