The mysterious workings of the electoral college II

　　Doesn't thim system mean a candidate could win the popular vote and still not become president?

　　It sure does. In fact, that's happened at least twi ce in american history. In 1876 and 1888 rutherford B.H ayes and benjamin harrison, respectively, became presid ent without winning the popular vote. Critics of the el ectoral college maintain this secnaio could easily take place again.

　　What happens if no one wins the majority of the ele ctoral votes?

　　We head to capitol Hill, where the U.S. House would choose the president( each state casting one vote) and the senate would pick a vice president (each senator vo tes).

　　So why don't we just cast our own darn votes?

　　That a good question. Defenders of the current syst em argue that an individual vote would favor voter-rich urban centers and leach power from rural areas. Besides , many maintain, we've always done it this way, and nob ody wants to change the constitution if we don't absolu tely have to.

　　Critics, on the other hand, argue the electoral col lege is at best an outdated relic, and at worst a loomi ng political disaster. If more than a simple plurality of voters in texas vote for bush, every vote over the p lurality is a "wasted vote.", in political science term s. Why souldn't those votes count for bush in the gener al election?

　　Will the electoral college exist 20 years from now?

　　Probably. Outside of academia and certain political circles, there's no sense of urgency to change the syst em. A major upheaval like abolishing the electoral coll ege vould likely take decades to gain widespread accetp ance. That's unlikely to happen any time soon-especiall y considering that many americans don't know how the sy stem works in the first place. Until now, that is …

　　By fessica reaves