Bush was the 4th president (and the first since the 19th century) to win while not winning the popular vote.  But the reason for the EC 200+ years ago is still germaine today.  It was a bone thrown to the small states so that they could have a voice in the direction of the country.  And indeed, that is why it is still needed. 

There are 2 major problems with electing a president by popular vote, one forseen by the founding fathers, and one shown to us by AL Gore.  First is that if a president was only elected by popular vote, the small states would never see a candidate for office.  Yet in the last 2 elections, states such as WV, NM, and IA were heavily campaigned as they were seen as swing states, even though they only had a handful of EC votes.

The second problem is that recounting 150m votes is unfeasible.  Yet Al Gore beat Bush in the popular total by what amounts to less than 1/2 percentage points.  So there was no need to recount 95% of those votes since only Florida (and actually NM - but that one is rarely talked about) were close enough for a recount.

But the reason the EC is not going to go away is that it would take a constitutional amendment.  And there are a lot more small states (if we use 10 as a cut off - about 37) than large ones, and they would need 37 states to go along with it.

Who cares about states anymore? Bah. I would rather we go back to the legislatures electing the senators, because that's how state rights got destroyed. When they were dependent on the states to get them in, they were more careful with what the Feds could actually have their hands on.

there is a case to be made for that, and cases to be made against it. i'm not gonna try n settle that here...but an observation that should be talked about more. parated2k is a big advocate of that i believe.

i don't think the electoral college is completely fair and may be obsolete. ,,,, but a pure popular vote might not be fair either. but i have a feeling, if the folks in washington really wanted to, they could figure something out. but that'll never happen as long as we don't demand it.

i like that idea about the percentage weighting the electoral count...hmmmm.

2 States, Nebraska and Maine, have a way of dividing their votes.  Maine divides theirs by congressional district, with the popular winner getting the other 2.  nebraska does it on percentage alone.

you could do what saddam did and hold a gun to everyones head

State rights?! Having legislators elect our president?! Why should citizens give up their direct voting to further politicize the process? In essence legislators already elect the president to a large degree. The nomination process is controlled by the state parties, which is in turn controlled by state legislators.

Getting rid of the electoral system would mean that areas like New York and Los Angeles control the election. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote mostly on the fact that he won New York by a huge margin.

Splitting the vote by popular vote is also a ludicrous idea. Take a look at the last election. Unless you are going to give candidates a fraction of an electoral vote the system will almost always be deadlocked. In most states the winning candidate will have between 50-60 % of the vote unless a third party candidate splits the vote. That means that almost all states would be evenly split.

If you want to make the electoral college more representative, I would have each congressional district up for grabs with the winner of the popular vote getting the 2 electoral votes that represent their states US Senators. Republicans would win some votes in California and northeast, and Democrats in the south.

i thought colorado had somethin special in that vein too...anyone? anyone? bueller? bueller?

They had it on the ballot, but rejected it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-02-co-initiative-electoral_x.htm

Good point ParaTed! The people vote to tell the state who to vote for... now it all makes sense again.

My work here is done. ;~D