After the caous that happened in 2000 for the Presidency...Should the President be elected on just the Popular vote of the "people"...other than having to be elected by the electoral college?...after all in 2000, Bush didn't even win all 270 electoral votes...

I believe the President should be elected by DPV. If a candidate attains a minimum of 55% of the DPV, then he should be elected President. But if no candidate attains 55%, then a runoff shall be held between the top two candidates and whomever wins the most states will be elected President.

In the first around, every political party in America will have a real shot of making it to the runoff. And in the runoff, the top two candidates have to campaign in every state because a candidate will need a combination of small and large states to win the election.

And in both races, the vote of individual citizens will count unlike our current winner take all system.

I also believe if a party submitts five million signatures to the FEC, then that party should be on the ballot nationwide. That party's candidate should also be eligible for free air-time and a spot in the Presidential debates.

Check out this report done by the cato institute.
Election 2000 study

Yes, a few states votes are very crucial but where is the majority of the population of the United States? In California, New York, etc., the states with the most votes. It WOULD be unfair if, say, Wyoming had the same political power as California. Then the small amount of people would decided what they want and the president is supposed to represent all Americans, not just a small state.

1)Alabama(9)
2)Alaska(3)
3)Arkansas(6)
4)Connecticut(7)
5)Delaware(3)
6)Hawaii(4)
7)Idaho(4)
8)Iowa(7)
9)Kansas(6)
10)Kentucky(8)
11)Maine(4)
12)Mississippi(6)
13)Montana(3)
14)Nebraska(5)
15)Nevada(5)
16)New Hampshire(4)
17)New Mexico(5)
18)North Dakota(3)
19)Oklahoma(7)
20)Oregon(7)
21)Rhode Island(4)
22)South Carolina(8)
23)South Dakota(3)
24)Utah(5)
25)Vermont(3)
26)West Virginia(5)
27)Wyoming(3)
That is more than Half of the Union, and it equals 137 electoral votes.

1)California(55)
2)Florida(27)
3)New York(31)
4)Texas(34)
That is just 4 states, and it's already more than half the states in the country. 147

Is that fair?
Throw in Illinois(21), Pennsylvania(21), Ohio(20), Michigan(17), Georgia(15), New Jersey(15), And North Carolina(15), then you've won the election regardless of what the other 39 states vote!

I think america is confused and everyone is looking for a touch stone which in this case is Bush. I am almost positive that he will be relected. A president should be looked at by more than his "fans".

Exactly.

The system is fine.

America's future should be determined by more than just California, New York, and Florida.

They should definetly check out other ways to conduct the vote. even though nothing will probably be done, every system should be checked every once in awhile