>>>Now we must remember he is our only appointed President. Such a distinction and I am sure the democratic process will reelect him. Perhaps by the next Presidential election we Americans will have the right to have our votes counted.
>>
>>Everybody knew the rules (Electoral College) going into the race, and he was elected in accordance with the rules. The popular vote has usually, but not always, come to the same conclusion as the electoral college.
>>
>>Hey, don't forget that dude in the Senate who is the Majority Leader only because of Jumpin Jim. Talk about the will of the people being stymied - by one!
>
>Randy;
>
>No one has to agree upon anything that they are not willing to believe. My understanding of the events which caused Bush to become President differ from your statement. I would like to suggest that Bush was not appointed President of the United States by the Electoral College. Gore would have won the Electoral College. Rather it was an act by the United States Supreme Court, which appointed Bush President of the United States. An awareness of fact is important to some but facts become forgotten quickly.
>
>http://www.croftononline.com/supremecourt1.html

The only problem with the article at that URL is that it is based on a false premis:
"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Puts Personal Desire For Quick Retirement Above U.S. Constitution"
Obviously, she can retire any time she wishes, so I doubt 'retirement' had anything to do with her decision.
The real crux of the argument is "Should the USA abandon the Electoral College in favor of highest vote count?"

There have benn lots of debates about this idea. Some of the best involve Physics:
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

Clearly, in U.S. presidential elections, it ain’t over till it’s over. A popular-vote loser in the big national contest can still win by scoring more points in the smaller electoral college. But isn’t this undemocratic? Isn’t it somehow wrong that a few hundred obscure electors, foisted on a new republic by men of property in powdered wigs, should be allowed to reverse the people’s choice?

By 1969, Congress was beginning to think so. After Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey with a popular margin, again, of less than 1 percent, the possibility of a modern-day winner’s being denied the presidency had become so obnoxious to the House of Representatives that it approved a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. The American Bar Association supported the move, calling our current electoral system "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect, and dangerous." In the Senate, too, the amendment had broad support. What could be simpler or fairer than electing the president by direct popular vote? Over the next few years the issue lost momentum, but Jimmy Carter’s narrow victory over Gerald Ford in 1976 brought it back to life. The League of Women Voters, a host of political scientists, and a large majority of American citizens, according to various polls, all agreed that the electoral college should be abolished. In 1977, though, among those testifying against the amendment was a self-described political nobody from Massachusetts: Alan Natapoff.

Leafing now through the Congressional Record, Natapoff laughs. "The impact of my testimony," he says, "was negligible." He hadn’t yet proved his theorem, and the mathematical argument he did present was edited to a "blunted" paraphrase, leaving out some of his most important arguments. The electoral college survived, of course, but not because of anything Natapoff said. After a decade of sporadic debate and 4,395 pages of testimony, the bill died in the Senate. It had majority support, but not the two-thirds majority required to pass it.

The issue will likely catch fire again, though, the moment another popular winner fails to muster the 270 electoral votes needed to clinch victory. "Raw voting, having the president elected by a popular vote, is deep in the American psyche," Natapoff says. It’s been around since Andrew Jackson finally won the presidency--four years later than he should have, according to 153,544 raw, frustrated voters. "My theorem," Natapoff admits, "contradicts the common wisdom of our time. Everybody gets this wrong. Everybody. Because we were taught incorrectly."


It gets better and is good reading..
JLK