> > At the very least the Electoral votes should be split in each state. If the state has 11 total votes and 6 vote Republican, 3 vote Democrat, 1 Green Party, and 1 other then that's exactly how it should be divided up. Personally, I am for disbanding it and let the popular vote decide. But then I'm not much of a politician, and I'm sure many of you could explain why that's a bad idea.
> >
> > Drac "I just want it to be over" imaS
>
> No, it's a very good idea. Some day, the voting booth will contain a computer connected to a mainframe in Washington. Your vote will be tallied almost instantly and the results will be announced within minutes of the last poll closing. There will be no need for TV tallies, exit polls, or the electorial college. But first, Congress will have to get its collective head out of the mud.
> Howard

That's pretty much how it works here in Finland. No, we don't (yet) have computers in booths, but the counting is done quite quickly because there are only about four million people who can vote. In the past we voted for "voters" of our area, who then voted for a president usually two times (the last time having only two candidates left). The present president of Finland was the second one selected with a direct vote from the citizens. It was a close race, too, the winning candidate getting about 51 percent of the votes. We vote first for a candidate we like, then after a week or so, if no candidate got over 50% of votes, we choose between the two most popular of the first race.

In both of the direct elections, we have had one female candidate (different one) in the last race. Last year she won and we got our first female president. I would have been happy with either of the candidates as president, though I had a strong opinion for her. The losing candidate, by the way, teaches now in Harvard University.

Juho