> > On the other hand, what the electoral college does do is make a strong statement. It would not make for a strong nation if its leader were elected on the basis of, say, 43% of the popular vote (while the runner up gets 41% or something). The electoral college sacrifices a couple of percentage points of absolute accuracy in exchange for being able to present to the world the statement that we, as a nation, have gotten behind a specific leader and intend to support that leader. That may not sound like an important thing, and I wish I could voice what I'm trying to say in more specific and compelling words, but it is important, both domestically and internationally, that we have a stronger statement of unity than what we'd get every time without the electoral college.
> >
> > Consequently, I think the electoral college is rather ingenius.
>
> I think I get it--because there are multiple political parties, a president doesn't always receive more than half of the popular vote. Clinton is a good example. He received only 42% his first term. The electoral college system, however, gave him more than half what was required to win, thereby giving him a mandate and enabling him to better lead.
>
> gab"Of course, I only posted this to get closer to post 25K"by

Or it gives the illusion that he has a mandate, he still had only 42% of the popular vote. Only 42% of the American citizens who actually voted, voted for him. The Electorial doesn't change this fact, it just missrepresents it.

Speed'popular vote'ball