>So what you are advocating is to re-address the Electoral College? I don't think a 300,000 vote margin nationwide makes Gore the "clear" popular vote winner. That's much less than 1%.

Well, compare the .338% popular margin to the .008% Florida margin. That popular number is 40 times the FL margin, a considerable difference. Which tally is more indicative and representative of the will of the people? Which one represents "fairness" to you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Gore fan (more of your Libertarian ilk, really) - and this could've very easily been Bush in the same situation, in fact), nor am I suggesting that we not use the current rules-of-law as to the electoral college for this election. I am saying that assuming Bush goes on to win, he will be a "minority" president, and that will considerably reduce his (or any president's) credibility & authority. Bad for our nation, not just an individual president or party.

So yes, I am advocating a major change in the electoral system. You may know that for many years now, 2/3 of the public think the electoral system is antiquated and unfair - and yet a full switch to a popular vote system might be too radical (IMO), and nevermind that, impossible to get a Constitutional Amendment passed. Anything that requires a C.A. is dead meat, IMO.

So, as I've previously ranted about (if you haven't seen my post), and have now since heard even US Congresspersons discussing this plan, the most obvious electoral improvement would be to assign the 438 "House" electors by CD presidential winner within state, as two states do now. Each state's overall presidential winner would get the 2 state "Senatorial" electors, as now. The current election system would not be radically altered, but would be much more accurate and synchronized with the popular vote. The odds of a split popular/electoral decision are much, much smaller with this method, nearly impossible to hit. Plus, this idea requires no Amendment, just a simple intra-state electoral allocation change. The smallest states don't even need the change.

BTW, one other unrelated point made by some presidential historians (Woodward & Bernstein, e.g.) in the past few days, that hadn't occurred to me. What may cause much ultimate damage to Bush is some months away - this is when some in-depth, fairly objective analyses (books) complete with statistical analysis, ballot counts, witnesses, etc., chronicling the FL election and aftermath will be published. It's suggested that this will show Gore as the clear FL winner by "voter intent." Just what Bush needs, eh? :)