Your question ”how did we end up here” as if we have regressed is wholly inaccurate. 2000 was not the first time the popular vote winner lost the election, it has happened at least once before, I believe in the 1880’s.

Anyway, you do realize, that up until about 50 or 60 years ago, the voters had no say in their parties nominee right? There were no ”primaries” or ”caucuses”, there was the convention and delegates chose the nominee, so at least you had a say.

As for the popular vote vs. electoral college, don’t you think the founding fathers thought of this? they were smart men who set up the system for a reason. THat is to keep states relevant and to keep centers of large population from having all of the say. The electoral college is in place to give people who live in Montana and North Dakota a say and little more influence. With a popular vote, the candidates would simply campaign in the 10 largest cities and be done with it. For example, if we had a straight popular vote, do you think Barack Obama would have been in Montana campaigning last week? No chance on earth. But because of the electoral college, Montana matters. So why is this important? Because it gives more Americans a chance to be involved and have a say in the democratic process. Their votes actually mean more under the electoral system, especially in those states that are considered ”swing states”. Certainly the process has its flaws but it is better than a straight popular vote.

Very well said. I deeply appreciate your thoughful comments but still think that we need a better system that awards the winner the prize, it’s as simple as that.