Thanks for explaining that, Dude.
Regarding the electoral college, it's dicey and I see the founders' motives and the benefits to not making it proportionate to population.
I also see flaws though.
1) It seems dicey that just because you live near a lot of people, your vote counts less and your voice is shortened on a per capita basis.
2) Moreover, if you have a minority stance in a populous region, a potentially significant portion of the population (say 2 of the 5 mil in Dallas or 20 of the 55 votes' worth in California) gets blanketed. This is especially frustrating because that 2 million or 20 votes worth, their population weight, is put into the machine as a 5 million or 55 vote voice.
So I definitely feel the splitting of the electoral votes is a step in the right direction towards addressing issue 2. Issue 1 is a trickier mess and in a way, the splitting of the votes helps addresses issue 1 some. I don't want Idaho getting shut out but marginalizing millions of voters because they live near each other doesn't seem fair either. I know we want to hear Idaho and Wyoming's voice but look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2...nAttention.png
I realize it's not just about the electoral system (getting more bang for your campaign buck or TV handshake) and states being more competitive politically, but the amount of attention and money being put on these guys is incredibly disproportionate to the number of people there. Texas and California basically get shut out even though there are a lot of alternate voices.