Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote

          The way the Presidential Election is set with the votes based on the states electoral votes, instead of the sum of all the votes of the people, was always very foreign to me. It is hard to make sense of the idea that a President can have the majority of votes and still loose an election. The founding Fathers wanted to ensure that the people and a federal system of states were electing the president. But in today’s world to think that if you live in a state that is opposed to whatever party you are voting for, it is a little upsetting. Professor Murdaco points out in the Constitution and the Federalist lecture that some people is against the Electoral College system because of the “wasted votes.” For instance, “…if a Republican gets 1,000 votes in NY, the Democratic candidate only needs 1,001 votes to receive the electoral votes for the whole state. If it turns out 5,000 people voted for that candidate, then most of those votes will be wasted, in the sense that they will not add anything to the chances of the candidate winning the election.” That is a valid point, but what worries me the most, is the idea that your vote would not matter in the opposite situation. I am a Democrat living in a Democrat State, but suppose I was a Democrat living in a Republican State, my vote would not mean much for the sum of votes for my candidate.  What happened on the Presidential election of 2000 should have been a reason for at least a discussion about the pros and cons of Electoral Vote vs. Popular Vote.