Changes

But instead Florida, like most States, votes with one voice in the Electoral College by casting all of its votes for the candidate who won the people's vote in Florida.  This is similar to how a jury makes a decision for one side or the other, and similar to how the delegates voted at the Constitutional Convention, where each State had one vote based on a majority vote by the delegates from that State.  So Florida, like most States, did not split its Electoral College votes between Bush and Gore, but instead cast all of its Electoral College votes for one or the other candidate.

But instead Florida, like most States, votes with one voice in the Electoral College by casting all of its votes for the candidate who won the people's vote in Florida.  This is similar to how a jury makes a decision for one side or the other, and similar to how the delegates voted at the Constitutional Convention, where each State had one vote based on a majority vote by the delegates from that State.  So Florida, like most States, did not split its Electoral College votes between Bush and Gore, but instead cast all of its Electoral College votes for one or the other candidate.

If you set the rules for your State, would you have this type of "winner-takes-all" system?  The advantages include preventing a candidate from taking the State for granted, and causing the candidate to try to win the State rather than simply attract some votes there.  Florida gets more attention from the candidates by having its "winner take all" system than it would otherwise.  This system is similar to sports contests, where fans prefer having a "winner" and a "loser", rather than a "tie" where neither side clearly won or lost.  On the other hand, having a winner-take-all system may result in decreased attention for a state that is safely Republican or Democratic.  For example, New Jersey is a safe Democratic state that assigns its Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, so it is a waste of money for either candidate to campaign there.  On the other hand, if New Jersey awarded Electoral College votes proportionally, it may be worthwhile for candidates to campaign there to get a few additional votes in the Electoral College.

If you set the rules for your State, would you have this type of "winner-takes-all" system?  The advantages include preventing a candidate from taking the State for granted, and causing the candidate to try to win the State rather than simply attract some votes there.  Florida gets more attention from the candidates by having its "winner take all" system than it would otherwise.  This system is similar to sports contests, where fans prefer having a "winner" and a "loser", rather than a "tie" where neither side clearly won or lost.  On the other hand, having a winner-take-all system may result in decreased attention for a state that is safely Republican or Democratic.  For example, New Jersey is a safe Democratic state that assigns its Electoral College votes on a winner-take-all basis, so it is a waste of money for either candidate to campaign there.  On the other hand, if New Jersey awarded Electoral College votes proportionally, it may be worthwhile for candidates to campaign there to get a few additional votes in the Electoral College.  In 2013, the Republican legislatures in Pennsylvania and Virginia considered bills that would award Electoral College votes by Congressional district, meaning that one vote would go to the winner of each Congressional district.  Both states went to Obama in 2012, and the efforts were seen as a way to allow Republican candidates to obtain at least some Electoral College votes, whereas under winner-take-all, they would be unlikely to get any at all.

There are other advantages to the Electoral College system.  No national recounts of votes are required in close presidential elections under this system.  In 1960, John F Kennedy received 34,220,984 votes, or 49.7%, compared with Richard Nixon, who won 34,108,157 votes, or 49.6%.  Barely 100,000 votes, out of more than 68 million cast, separated the two candidates.  In the absence of an Electoral College system, a nationwide recount would have taken many weeks and might have changed the result.  But with the Electoral College, the overall outcome did not depend on the results in Illinois, as Kennedy's margin of victory in the Electoral College was large enough that he would still have a majority even if Nixon won Illinois.

There are other advantages to the Electoral College system.  No national recounts of votes are required in close presidential elections under this system.  In 1960, John F Kennedy received 34,220,984 votes, or 49.7%, compared with Richard Nixon, who won 34,108,157 votes, or 49.6%.  Barely 100,000 votes, out of more than 68 million cast, separated the two candidates.  In the absence of an Electoral College system, a nationwide recount would have taken many weeks and might have changed the result.  But with the Electoral College, the overall outcome did not depend on the results in Illinois, as Kennedy's margin of victory in the Electoral College was large enough that he would still have a majority even if Nixon won Illinois.