Newt want to be the first president of the moon.

didn't Huckabee advertise for a book that claims cinnamon could cure diabetes? sounds like he sure is apt at taking the money of the hopeful to higher ground

Because it serves as a winner take all system. I think there is only a 3-4 times in history that someone took the popular vote and didn't win the electoral college and it has been a difference of about 100K-500K votes. In the grand scheme of things it works pretty well. It is not at all like having a situation where someone wins 40% of the vote and the election. 60% of the country that could have voted for 2 other people combined definitely would be unhappy with the 3rd choice elected by only 40% of the country. Don't forget the system also protects smaller and larger states and cities making the candidates be more than just regional popular. You have to win a majority of the map and not just get all the votes in 5 largest states whose population greatly out weighs 15 other states.

Ok, but the electoral college is still weighted for population so big states do have more say... And it still creates a situation where the minority of people can elect the president versus a popular vote system... Which in your first post you indicated it was created to stop that from happening...

I was incorrect to say it was created for that purpose, I think the purpose was to give proper weight to the states versus big and small and balance them out. It is possible but highly rare to have what you say happen yes. But the big benefit of the electoral college is that it prevents that in "most" cases as well. Even when it doesn't the margin is very small as I pointed out. Again a straight popular vote like the original poster was suggesting would be a disaster and leave the door open for candidates to win that would not have the support of the majority of the country. Simple math says if you have 10 votes and the most votes wins between 3 candidates 4-3-3, the person with 4 wins even though 6 didn't even want that person. Worse case scenario with the electoral college is someone with 4.9 votes wins and the perons with 5.1 loses...and that again is very rare.

Well, with your last scenario that isnt something the electoral college will help prevent, that is something the two party system helps prevent.  Which if there is a strong third party candidate then you do see that kind of result even with the electoral college (see bill Clinton).  The electoral college was set up to help prevent regional bias from affecting the results, but it has far outlived its usefulness.  For one thing, the country doesn't really have the whole north versus south thing anymore.  For another, the electoral college now gives a handful of states, the battleground states, control of the election.  Candidates don't even bother with the rest of states anymore.  Basically, the electoral college creates the exact scenario it was designed to prevent.

ehm no, the us systems gives a vote of a small state more power than one from a big state, because there is a minimum number of members of the electoral college of every state, and this minimum is so high that many small state get more votes than they would without this minimum.

No it doesn't. It seems like many people here have no clue on the electoral college. PLease feel free to read up on it:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

Electoral votes are basically decided upon how many citezens in a state since its based of how many members of congress you have (slitghly wieghted since 1 house of congress isn't based on population but equal representation) So it doesn't give smaller states a bigger voice. It doesn't stop a minority voted in president either, since you can win by electoral votes but not over all votes. The time for the electoral college has passed. all it does is make many people votes and opinions not matter, just ask any republican voter in CA how they feel. Its time for a change of the electoral college. All its done is brought the presidental debate down to 7 swing staets every four years instead of 50. Pretty sad.

Here is some info on it incase you doint want to go to the link:

Electoral votes are allocated based on the Census. (The Census is the count every 10 years of how many people live where and it decides how many reps you get for each state, so more population, more reps, more reps more electoral votes. Say hello to CA again)
The allocations below are based on the 2010 Census.
They are effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections.

Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

Who selects the Electors?

The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Each candidate will have their own unique slate of potential Electors as a result of this part of the selection process.

Electors are often chosen to recognize service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.

On Election Day, the voters in each State choose the Electors by casting votes for the presidential candidate of their choice. The Electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State. The winning candidate in each State—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors—is awarded all of the State’s Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

The Republican primary is more stacked than the cast of the last Avengers movie. Forget Mayweather Pacquiao I'd pay $100 to see the first debate. So msny egos waiting to be hurt.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? The more choices the better. The candidates are different enough that they suit all niches (within the general branch of their ideology), while whoever wins the primary will have the support of many of these diverse groups, unless the Democratic candidate is competitive with independents and moderates with respect to the Republican candidate. It is refreshing and motivating to see many candidates because there is a chance that this election won't sum up to a Bush vs. Hillary.