loquitur

Rekna, I disagree that the system is broken, even the Electoral College. It's working exactly and precisely the way it was designed to work. I understand you think the results are not good, but that doesn't mean the system is broken. Presidential campaigns would look very different in a different system - you can't assume, for example, that Al Gore definitely would have won in 2000 if there was a popular vote system, because if there was a popular vote system the campaign would have looked much different. For example, using 2000 again: it was very clear that Gore would win NY (my home state). So Bush never went there. But in a popular vote system, he wouldn't have to win the state, he'd just have to increase his vote total. Doing that in NY is very efficient because there are a lot of people in a small space. So he prob would have come to NY to campaign, and gotten more NY votes than otherwise. The same would be true of Gore in Texas, for example. In the electoral college system, each candidate chooses which states s/he will contest. That also means if there is a problem, as there was in FL in 2000, it's in only one state, not in the whole country. It also ensures that whoever wins is acceptable across a broad swath of the country and not only in the most densely populated areas. It's not a perfect system but it's not "broken" - it's working the way it's supposed to work. I suppose we could argue about whether it's a good idea, but that's a different discussion.

Oh, Rekna, one other thing - The system you're advocating is the way the Italian and Israeli systems work. Believe me, you don't want that kind of a system. It breeds a remarkable blend of instability and corruption, and with it tremendous public cynicism.