One of the arguments that comes up from time to time is that the Electoral College, as set up by the Constitution, is outdated.  Many say that the true will of the people can only be reflected by honoring the popular vote.  That would have meant that Al Gore would have been elected President in 2000 rather than George W. Bush and would have had an impact in previous elections, making them far closer than what they really are.

I personally think that moving to a popular vote system would have an impact on campaigning that no one but those in urban areas would like.  If we had that kind of system, you would see less and less of candidates making their way to Iowa, West Virginia and Nevada and have them instead stick to areas like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.  People running for President would not need to visit the areas of the nation that are not urban areas because that would be the easiest way to get the popular vote that you would need to win the Presidency.  Suddenly, urban areas would elect Presidents and people in cities of 500,000 and smaller would never have the opportunity to say that they have seen the President.

A visit from a President is something that is unforgettable.  I personally enjoyed listening to Ronald Reagan on his 1984 reelection bid as he swung through my hometown, a place that boasts of around 20,000 people living there.  Would he still have visited if he didn't need the electoral votes of my home state?  Would a candidate bother with smaller states if he or she could simply go only to big ones to get elected?  Would the voice of smaller states and rural people be heard?

That is the genius of the Electoral College system.  The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set it up and it works as well or better now, over 200 years later.