is true that the strategy and tactics employed to win the White House would become more complicated, and that the law of unintended consequences might rule. Under a popular-vote scheme, there are almost as many possibilities for gaining a majority, as there are media markets in the country. The rewards of winning decisively in states that are part of a candidate's home base also raise a worry: Sympathetic local polls might be tempted to try to tip the scales. "Vote fraud would be at a premium," said former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour. "You get into a state that you are going to carry by a large margin, there's not much incentive to run up the score today. Ninety percent turnout in some precincts matters a lot more if it's a straight popular vote." "It would be a free-for-all," said Jeffrey Bell, a Republican presidential campaign strategist who is a principal at Capital City Partners, a political and policy consulting firm in Washington. "People would be tempted to say, `to hell with the party. I'll enter the primaries. That gives me recognition. Then I'll look at my options.' " Direct elections might significantly empower any alternative party that had the organizational power and money to get some altitude nationally. "The winner-take-all system discourages third parties," said L. Sandy Maisel, a professor of government at Colby College. Smith College's Gold added: "It could enhance the influence of third parties on the major parties, especially if you move to a system of runoffs"(Simendinger). So, other than there being a more accurate depiction of the will of the people, how would the new system be beneficial? One man, Sen. Birch Bayh, claims that direct election would place more power in the hands of African-Americans. Is this true and if so, how? Bositis, an African-American political analyst thinks so. “His logic: African-Americans, who make up big parts of the electorate in some Southern sta...
