QUOTE: We do not have a national election for the office of the President of the United States; all eligible voters cast their vote only for their state's respective slate of electors.

I understand this.  And that's part of what's antiquated about the system.  As I mentioned above, the system was put into place when distance from "large clusters of the national body politic" quite realistically cut individuals off from the flow of information and communication to allow for an informed decision in voting, travel to and from those areas for campaigning was more time-consuming and problematic in relation to the percieved value of the return of votes, travel to and from the polls was equally problematic, and a quick efficient means of tabulating and reporting each vote cast did not exist, making it somewhat logical to employ a method of sampling the populace and extrapolating that sample (a la the Nielsen ratings).

Now, however, we live in a different time.  We live in a time in which that distance doesn't preclude everyone receiving the same information.  Here we are, on this very board, with individuals from not only "urban" and "rural" (and even "isolated") areas within the US, but individuals on the other side of the planet all capable of receiving the exact same information at the exact same time.

We live in a time in which long-distance travel is speedy and commonplace enough that a candidate can make an appearance in Metropolis for breakfast, Smallville for lunch, and still have time for at least one more stop by dinner.

We live in a time in which even local travel to get to the polls is faster.  A time in which early voting begins weeks before the election, allowing the voter to pick a time convenient to him or her to make the trip to the polls, even if it's a bit of a haul to get there.

We live in a time in which, election after election, we can receive virtually instantaneous counting of votes, and can see those numbers updated in real time.

We live in a time in which, due to these and other advances, such extrapolation from sampling is not only no longer necessary, but the method in which it's applied becomes a less accurate representation of the people.

However, we live in a time in which too many still believe that allowing each individual to have a vote (as opposed to a fraction of a vote) will somehow cause mass confusion and chaos and "small states" will be ignored.  And that just doesn't make sense.  If more people in those "small states" prefer Candidate A over Candidate B, then that will still be reflected in their votes.

QUOTE: One person, one vote...period.  That's our Union.

At the end of the day, it isn't "one vote," either.  It's an infinitesimal fraction of a vote, its exact value dependent upon turnout at the polls and the number of electoral votes afforded the state.

Simply put (I know...too late), a system in which it's even possible for a candidate to get more votes than his/her opponent(s) and still lose is not a system that represents the populace.

And that's without even going into the fact that the Electors are not required to vote for the candidate that "won" the state's electoral votes.....

[edit: sentence re-order for clarity]

If you hate Britney, then you love Christina.

*******

Not true. I hate them both.

If you hate Britney, then you love Christina.

*******

Not true. I hate them both.

----

Liar!

Not so sure I'd say it "evenly" covers the pros & cons....

The "cons" all contained counter-arguments, while the "pros" seemed to promise everything but a *ahem* "happy ending" if ya catch my drift. (Hey...continuity with the "legalized prostitution" thread drift.  Woo-hoo!)