UNITED STATES, NOT A UNITED MOB. Bill Whalen reminds readers of the purpose of the Electoral College. In its absence, here is his interpretation of what would happen.

Big states, with their large media markets, would dominate the fall campaign.

That would make for a tactical and stylistic change: presidential elections based more on mass marketing in urban areas than on retail political skills in rural communities.

Ironically, that’s the polar opposite of how the two parties choose their nominees: sizing up candidates as they go door to door in small towns in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Over the past 200 years, some 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.

Instead, lawmakers should recognize the realities of these times: In the past three presidential elections, no candidate achieved 50% of the [popular] vote.

Although he did lose the popular vote by 0.5% of the national total, Bush nevertheless carried 30 of the 50 states, 228 of the 435 congressional districts, and 2,480 counties to Gore’s 674.

In this regard, the Electoral College narrowly chose a winner based on his performance as the candidate with broader national appeal.

Come to think of it, it is a national election, not a regional choice.

Does it make sense to assign electoral votes by Congressional district, with two at-large delegates to be assigned based on the voting by districts?