I think James Thunder's defense of the Electoral College on the main
site today is right on the money. Being the pedantic jerk that I
am, I would just quibble with this bit: "No voter has ever
voted, and no candidate has ever campaigned, in the
context of a national popular vote for president."
Actually, I voted for George W. Bush from a blue state in 2000
because I wanted him to win the popular vote regardless of the
Electoral College result. (I talk about how I feel about that
decision now in the current print issue of The American
Spectator). My view was that a popular vote/electoral vote
mismatch would either pull President Bush to the left or President
Gore to the right. I wasn't dumb enough to believe it was going to
come down to my one vote, but I thought the only way I could
contribute to the outcome I wanted was to vote for Bush.
Second, I think in the aftermath of the 2000 race presidential
candidates probably do give at least some thought to the national
popular vote because they know it affects their legitimacy in the
eyes of some voters. It is obviously a secondary concern after
winning the states necessary to prevail in the legally binding
electoral vote, but I think most candidates probably want to win
the popular vote too. At least Electoral College defenders should
hope so, because another mismatch so soon after 2000 would probably
be damaging to that institution, however wrongly.