[Sailor Steve]

Actually the Electoral College system was designed to preserve the States' autonomy, i.e. keep them separate and preserve their individual power. The idea was that, while they had to be united to survive they didn't want to give up what they had. Madison wanted all the power to rest in the hands of the People. Others wanted the power to belong to the States. The People were never meant to vote in a Presidential Elections. The States were to appoint the Electors in whatever manner they thought best. As it turned out more and more States decided that it was best to let the People decide.

I see it both ways. On the one hand if the EC was done away with then what happened in 2000 could conceivably happen many times over, with multiple recounts happening over the whole country and a decision possibly never being reached. On the other hand it's not the land that does the voting, or the States proper. If the People are to decide, then is it right for the States to overturn that decision with an all-or-nothing process? In fact it hasn't always been that way. It used to be that the Electors were aligned by votes within the States. The same argument made for the Nation could also be made at the State level. If Utah has six Electors and 60% of the voters are Republican, 30 % Democrat and 10% "other", is it really fair for all six Electors to be Republican? Some States used to divide it; Maine and Nebraska still do.

So the EC system was created so the States elect the President, and the People didn't. It still works out that way, even though the people are allowed to vote for the Electors. Is it right? Is it fair? I don't know. I do see that people are unhappy when they think they're voting for the President but the candidate who the people want loses to the candidate the States mandate.

Don't take this to mean I'm unhappy with the last Presidential Election. I am, but I didn't want either one of them. "None Of The Above" doesn't get a vote.