Hi William:

The U.S. is not considered one entity in all other connections.  Some
states have capital punishment, others don't.  If you enter California,
you had better not bring with you fresh produce from other states (such
as oranges), or you will lose them at the border.  Speed limits vary, as
previously drinking ages varied.  Welfare rates vary, as do income tax
(state and city) levies or sales tax rates.  One could go on, of course.

As has been pointed out by Adrian and others, the parliamentary system
as practiced in Canada and elsewhere does not mean that the leader with
the most votes becomes prime minister (or premier of a province).  That
goes to the leader of the party which wins the most seats not
necessarily to the leader of the party which acquired the most popular
votes.

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?  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.
Dan

William Meecham wrote:

> In all other connections, the US is considered one entity.  We don't
> have separate air forces by state to keep other 'rogue ' states
> in line for instance.
>
> Every where in the world the person with most votes wins.  Indeed
> before this election everyone agreed that the electoral system
> was an anachronism.  It was in fact set in place to guarantee that
> democracy didn't get out of hand.  But with modern bribery the
> rich see that it isn't needed.
> w