Thanks all for your responses...I look forward to learning more.


From my under-informed point of view- didn't it seem like the "other" side gained momentum when the media(dem) made such a case for Gore in FL against Bush? If we did not have the EC, I would have guessed that there would have been less of a media-stirred prodding?
From a small soapbox, I would offer that maybe that toe hold may be the tipping point which helped the current regime into power? What other state could foul-play nepotism be used against the opposing party?

please forgive me if I have my facts goofy. I did not go the range today.

ryan50bmg....I hope that is truly how the EC works...but to me it seems that the opposite is true- swing states get to decide-
Red votes red Blue votes blue- campaigning goes on primarily in the swing states at calculated times to yield best results- to me that says that only the swing states are where the action is, ergo - not necessarily a popular vote?
Especially in a "two party" system. I think my reluctance would change if we had viable additional parties and fact seeking voters.

In a winner-take-all EC, CA and TX especially, do not potentially represent (factually) voters preference-Example: if say 51% of the vote goes one way....all the weight of those states "rounds" up to 100% instantly instead of carrying that 51% to the final tally alone.

so if 51% x 55 EC votes for CA were carried that would equal 28/55ths not 55/55ths?? so 27 EC votes don't matter now-and in fact their intention has been reversed?


If the EC was used as in Maine where it is NOT a winner-take-all vote and was majority rule-I could be more at ease with it currently.
So, if the proponents say the EC is to protect smaller states-to me that is entirely different than protecting an individuals right to a vote that matters?
What am I missing?

Respectfully