Yea, that is exactly what the founding fathers were thinking, although the system has morphed itself a couple of times since then to suit additional purposes. Most proponents of the system see it as a tool to give a higher proportion of voting power to the smaller and less populous states, forcing the candidates to not just campaign in large urban areas. Makes some sense there. It forces a distribution of popular support, not just in concentrated areas.
I read about Maine and Nebraska's proportional electoral voting and it is a neat concept over the "winner takes all". I believe there is a fear, should other states adopt such a system (I believe Colorado has it on the ballot), that it would be difficult for a candidate to get a a majority of the electoral votes, thus throwing the election in the House of Reps (and the VP into the Senate).
Anyway, just enjoyable research to see how the whole political process comes together from the regional elections all the way up to the federal level and the process of getting there.
Missouri just went Bush.
Krool