Not according to the link pasted by your first mate ake, Teribus.

Given the importance of Iowa in the nomination process, every candidate makes promises about ethanol subsidies important to the farmers in that State but not to the rest of the population. The other 40 states get little attention or promises. If the election was based only on popular vote, then the candidates would go where the votes are, California, New York, Texas and Illinois and the swing states would have less importance But there are 29 states with less than ten electoral votes whose influence in a presidential election would be greatly diminished.

I am interested in what people would think is a better system so your input would be appreciated. Why would one voting population in one country voting for one president not work and why does it have to be split into states? Not that it matters here (both UK and Mudcat) really.

DtG

DtG