Here'e an iteresting article I read in the OP/ED section of the Washington Times today. It addresses the "madness" of pre-election hysteria in society and the media.
But the author also made a good point that helps support the benefit of living in a republic, as we do, rather than a strict democracy. Here's a quote:
"After more than one hundred years, the nation was re-awakened to the idiosyncrasy of the electoral college in 2000, i.e., that a majority of voters do not elect a president. As I have stated before, 2004 is turning out to be a "pure" electoral college strategy year, with both campaigns devoting almost all of their efforts in about a dozen states where the contest is considered close. If the Kerry-Edwards campaign turns out an extra million voters in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, it will not affect the outcome. The Democrats will likely win those states easily. If the Bush-Cheney folks turn out extra hundreds of thousands of votes in Texas and the southern and western states in which they have a commanding lead, it would also make no difference.
The whole nation will have to observe and listen to the madnesses, but they will be directed toward voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, West Virginia, New Hampshire, some western states such as New Mexico, Colorado and Oregon, and the voters of the new super-state I have named 'Minnewisowa' (also known as Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa). The next month will not likely be serene and pleasant for the citizens of these electoral battlegrounds."
If we elected our presidents by true popular vote, citezens in some of these less populated areas would be hard pressed to get one visit from either candidate or their needs addressed by our government.