And if Ms Harris was a Dem, she wouldn’t have tilted the other way at the expense of the RNC? Give me a break. Why not go further in the past and blame the Donk who lost the position to the GOP?

How about trying to deny the votes of the absentee ballots, particularily from overseas?

Like I said, stuff happens, just as in sports. If a ref misses fouls, just press on.

Anyhoo, the proof in the pudding is the margin of victory in 04 more than accounts for any population shifts in the interim.

Name 3 grounds, scratch that, name 2.

As for level playing field, how did we “tilt” it towards our team? The rules were set in place over 200 years ago before the modern day DNC & RNC ever came into being. 2000 was not the first time that a popular winner lost. That said, I think there are a number of other steps short of eliminating the EC that can deal with incumbency, corruption etc so that the Will of the People are better reflected.

Compared to cancer treatment, you’re calling for a full body exposure to radiataion when targeted treatment would suffice. In any case, I don’t think anyone can ever make your case such that the small States can be induced to go along and ratify such an amendment, even if the ‘majority’ agrees.

There is something to be said for mechanism to temper or damper wild swings in the public mood. Do you even know exactly what the Founding Fathers were afraid of when they came up with the EC? Hint slavery, go look it up.

Without devices like the EC and super-majorities, who knows how long slavery would have continued? Certainly wouldn’t have ended sooner. Why? Till the bitter end, slavery & Jim Crow were supported by the majority of the people. So much for the wisdom of conventional wisdom.

Just consider the EC as part of the overall checks and balances embedded in our political system and you won’t lose any sleep over it. If indeed Gore was the better man, and the EC ‘mistakenly’ elevated Bush, then Gore, by proof of his superior ideas could have com back in 04 to take it back. But here we sit, 6 years later waiting to see if he is indeed.

As for 2000: without getting in the muck of that election, let’s just say that there are reasonable grounds to question the way Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris handled the recount, and if the levers of power were in other hands the results could very well have been quite different. If I remember correctly, there were 23 decisions which Harris had to make, and all 23 leaned to the Republicans. So I don’t think it’s poor sportsmanship to take exception to the results.

As for “credible reports of malfunctions and fraud:” the only reports I’m aware of are in Katherine Harris’s old district, where 18,000 votes in a Democratic district were lost and the Republican won by 350 votes.

To wit, it requires ratification to make it so. The fact that a certain % of voters can say NO and stall the process is in effect ‘non-democratic’. That’s why in many of our processes, a simple majority is not enough, one must have 60% or 2/3s.

This is a prudent countermeasure to temper irrational enthusiasim for certain laws or candidates.

Be real. If the tables were turned, would you be arguing for eliminating the EC? Some rules are meant to be and yes, you win some and lose some, but in the long march, the nation as a whole reflects the majority’s desire.

The thing I detested most about 2000 were the overt attempts to change the rules in mid-stream. In my mind, you play the game as the rules are written prior to the event. If something comes up that highlights a supposed deficiency, then do a comprehensive review and if necessary (agreed to by a vote of the concerned parties) adjust the rules for the NEXT season.

What happend in 2000 was the equivalent of playing Calvin-Ball where rules get made or tossed on the fly. No thanks. That said, seeing Gore’s reaction — piss poor sportsmanship — I’m glad he lost. I’d feel the same if the tables were turned, because my mantra is ‘follow the rules and be a sport’ trumps partisanship.

To wit, note the excessive and hyperbolic wailing and gnashing of teeth over ‘we wuz robbed’ in 2002 & 2004 when Dems losts, and the sound of silence last month, even tho there were credible reports of malfunctions & fraud. It’s easy to be a good sport when you’re winning, tougher when you’re down and in that regard, the dems are lousy sports.

Why even have states, under the arguments you are putting forward?

I think you’re seriously missing the point behind the Electoral College. Here’s one quick quote:

The Electoral College dilutes the votes of population centers that might have different concerns from the rest of the country. The system is supposed to require presidential candidates to appeal to many different types of interests, rather than, say, the urban voter. The College enabled the Founding Fathers to deftly incorporate the Connecticut Compromise and three-fifths compromise into the system of choosing the President and Vice President, sparing the convention further acrimony over the issue of state representation.