> Indeed, there have been periodic crusades to abolish the college.
>But they failed to win much support from many states. And for good
>reason: If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would
>have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would
>concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the
>Northeast and California. ''Their time would be better spent in
>places like Brooklyn,'' says Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.). As
>a result, the college ''keeps us from having a regional
>Presidency,'' says Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.).
> It also has strong backing from powerful interests such as
>farmers and gun-rights groups. Because of their concentration in
>such less populated, rural places, it magnifies their power in swing
>states like Iowa and Tennessee. What's more, both parties back the
>Electoral College. Because of the winner-take-all-aspect of almost
>every state's electoral votes, third parties don't stand a chance.
>In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote but did not get
>a single electoral vote.