Popular vote better way to choose

As America waits for the results of Election 2000, it seems a few hundred votes will decide the next president because of one state's electoral votes. The Electoral College is an outdated system, which should be abolished to make elections more fair.\n Under the current system, whichever candidate gains the majority of votes in a state wins the entire number of electors in the Electoral College. Even if a state's returns are close, the electoral votes are winner--take--all. Maine and Nebraska are the only states that divide their electoral votes proportionally.\nThis can be problematic, because a candidate could win a high percentage of votes in several large states but not win any of their electoral votes. This would result in a president elected without a popular majority of votes. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the election, and California alone represents 54 electoral votes.\nIf the Electoral College were abolished, the entire nation would elect the president, instead of a few key states. The current focus on Florida's recount would not be as important if it weren't for the exact number of electoral votes Florida represents.\nAbolishing the Electoral College would mean increased voter turnout. Many voters think their votes do not count. Here in Indiana, a Republican candidate has taken all of the electoral votes in every election since 1960. If candidates were elected by popular vote alone, each vote really would count.\nThe Electoral College was put in place in the 18th century because citizens lacked knowledge of candidates. The Electoral College was filled with the best and brightest to elect a national leader, to avoid each region voting for its favorite citizen and resulting in no clear national majority.\nThese problems do not exist today. The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness, and a return of the election to the people will result in a more fairly elected president.