>AFAIK, the framers more-or-less assumed the electoral & popular winner would coincide, as they generally do. They were certainly not aware of the mathematical flaw, IMO. Reading a little deeper into their electoral system intent ("representative power"), it actually might not have bothered them terribly if the two votes weren't in sync upon rare occasion, even had they been aware of the problem, back in the 18th C. They did not generally approve of direct voting, that came into cultural fashion later. The idea back then was to settle such disputes in representative chambers, not in the court of public opinion as we do today with the media blazing 24/7.
>
>Meaning no offense to the founding fathers (they did an extraordinary job, all-in-all), but we have seen these two notable factors at play over time:
>
>1) A decided trend toward popular voting power over 2 centuries. This is due to both a cultural shift, as well as communications & technological improvements.
>
>2) Each time there has been a split popular/electoral winner, it has caused much trouble and grief. The splits are not popular in the US, and really diminish our nation in the view of other nations that look up to us as an example for leadership & excellence in government, as the splits bring out all the worst in us. We have eventually survived each of these crises as a nation, because our foundation is strong - but it's clear to me we would survive much, much, better without these election splits.
>
>The splits have been relatively rare before now - but my guess is we'll see more soon enough unless we act to correct it, as both major parties have learned to cater to the political center, and form philosophies largely by public poll. There is great balance in the electorate now, and it may be here to stay. Both parties have jettisoned or muzzled philosophies that led to losing, basically. The mathematical flaw in the electoral college system is quite large enough to show up frequently under these circumstances.

Good points. It would seem that some sort of modification to the system is in order. Although I generally favor a straight popular vote winner, I can see how this could adversely affect different states since we are a very large country physically and diverse philosophically/politically/religiously. So it will be interesting to see how "we" (i.e. the country) can provide for a resolution. And I would like to see a good one, casue I personally don't feel very sanguine about the large role the courts are playing in this election. :-)