[cyncooper]

Granted, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, but by using that same rationale, Bush lost his home country, no?

No, it is not the same rationale.

Neither candidate attempts to garner the majority of the popular vote, and voters know it. They would run completely different campaigns if that was the goal, so to hold them to that standard is unfair.

How many Bush voters in Texas, for example, did not vote because they knew Bush had it sewn up by miles? How do you figure in states that both candidates write off as already a given for the other guy? There surely are people in those states they'd try to rally to the polls if they were after amassing the most votes country wide.

No, it is not the same.

[motzman]

How many Bush voters in Texas, for example, did not vote because they knew Bush had it sewn up by miles? How do you figure in states that both candidates write off as already a given for the other guy? There surely are people in those states they'd try to rally to the polls if they were after amassing the most votes country wide.

Exactly. I almost didn't even bother to vote at all because I was pressed for time and I live in NJ. But, I did find the time, and did vote anyway. Presidentially, my vote did not matter. The converse of this is not true because the solid GOP states have far less population then the Rat states like the festering puss-hole I live in called new Jersey.

Elections decided by popular votes would be conducted completely different.

[MrB]

If the president were elected by popular vote, the campaign would have been run differently.

Personally, I think the legislatures should assign the electors as well as vote for the Senators.

This would make people pay more attention to their local representatives.