I agree. I find it amusing when I win the electoral college and lose the popular vote by maybe three hundred votes (with over two hundred million votes counted!) and the post-election analysis says I won "even though I didn't get the support of most voters"!
It's also interesting to note that the voting turnout is always unusually high, possibly a 100% turnout, which would be possible in the real world only if laws were passed where voting was obligatory. I wonder if this were the case in reality, if it wouldn't happen more often that the electoral votes and popular votes would disagree. After all, if every eligible voter votes in every state, the big blowouts wouldn't change the electoral vote margin at all but would definitely alter the popular margin.
There should be an option where one can determine (just as difficulty level, etc.) how high or low turnout is to be, with the norm being what usually happens, and high turnout (100%) to low turnout. It would be interesting to see how that would alter strategy.
I also like the randomizing options, except that the number of total electoral votes is always very high. It would be nice if one could choose their own population scenarios and play with various situations such as: each state has one vote (even though 3 is the minimum in reality) and it's a best of fifty situation; where 47 states total the same electoral votes as three big states which are broken evenly among conservative, liberal, and battleground. So forth and so on.
