Set aside the question of whether we should elect a president by popular or electoral votes. The reality is that we do so using the electoral vote system.

That's why the Clinton campaign is now adopting an electoral vote strategy in wooing superdelegates.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

It is a fascinating issue, don't you think? Should the will of the majority count more in the nominating contest, or the measure of strength in terms of the measure that actually counts in November? Of course, given the denunciation of the Electoral College system by Democrats -- including Mrs. Clinton -- to consider the weight of states based upon electoral votes seems a bit hypocritical.

But then again, when have the Clintons ever averse to a little hypocrisy in the service of political opportunism?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, , Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.