I would put forth, that if Bush collected the majority of the electoral votes, that Occam's razor would tell us that he also collected the majority of the popular votes since the electoral votes are based upon the popular vote.
Consider this case: A large state such as California had 1,000,000 votes cast. After counting 750,000 ballots, Bush is leading by 300,000 ballots. California, under the electoral vote system can stop counting now as those remaining 250,000 ballots will not change the result. I don't think there was a lead that large in any given state, but 50 states times 10,000 votes a state adds up. Don't pick apart the specifics of that example, look at the general case. The electoral system is designed so that as soon as one person's lead is greater than the amount of remaining ballots counting can cease, so speed election results. Considering the logistics of counting up to 2 billion ballots, I'm sure you all can understand the logic behind this. Cliffs notes: Under the electoral system, you cannot compare popular votes as all ballots are not counted. >Gore did >have more popular votes - but he did not have more electoral votes. There are >a lot of opinions (for and against) the electoral college - but it is the way >the system is setup legally. It was setup before the election between Bush >and Gore. Only Gore wanted to change the rules AFTER the election started.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
