b, no, I don't think that it changes a whit the snowjobs involved, but it does
ensure that minorities (viewed here in a broad sense) get due consideration,
which is one aspect of democracies that I consider valuable.  Concerning your
second point, do you really believe that the snow job and MNC control and
manipulation would be any different if the election was settled by the electoral
college or strictly by popular vote?  If so, why?  In any event, you may have
missed the point of my comment, which was that in an election such as this, the
determination of the president might very well take months (past the expected
inauguration date) if there had to be a recount and judicial challenges of the
vote in virtually every precinct of the United States rather than in a single
closely contested  state. Dan

b wrote:

> Dan:
> > The electoral college may have its drawbacks, but consider two of its
> > strengths.  One is that it requires presidential candidates to pay
> > attention to all states rather than only the most populous states.  If
> > it were a national popular vote in the U.S., how much attention would
> > sparsely populated states such as New Hampshire or Iowa receive?
>
> So the electoral college system makes a more comprehensive sell-job
> necessary. I'd be reluctant to read that as a positive.
>
> > If
> > adjudicating and recounting the electoral returns of Florida are a bit
> > much, imagine doing it for all fifty states in a close
> > election (such as
> > this one) if what mattered was the popular vote of the entire nation.
>
> Which is the last thing anyone who presumes to be in power wants... a
> popular will that 'matters'.
>
> I wonder how a country with a sophisticated public process - Switzerland for
> example, gets by without all this palaver.
>
> Regards
>
> b