“You must admit that it is interesting that since Bush won the popular vote in Florida by 537 votes he won all 25 electoral votes.
Of course that is the way our system works and overall it is a good system given the possibilities that could occur with a popular vote..”

Interesting? No. That is just the way it is.

Now If I could take my ‘magic wand’ out for a sec. Maybe we need to change the ‘rules’ to something like the electoral votes must be split as close as possible to match the popular vote. In this case 13 Bush, 12 Gore. If this was done across all of the states Gore may have won.

And/Or

If an election ( at any level ? ) has a gap of less then 1 % ( pick a number ) then an automatic revote with in X days must occur. ( What happens if the gap is again 1% ?? ) People of course could change their votes. Let us assume there were many people that voted for Nader, but are really afraid of Bush winning, they could change their votes to Gore to block a Bush Win. Yes in a sense this allows people to vote after knowing the results from the other states. ( What about this side question: Can some one who is registered to vote in the first election but did not vote can in the second? What about absentee voters? The overseas military vote ? )

I’ve read several other possible changes including allow people to rank their preferences if more then 2 candidates where listed. In fact I like that. This way someone can say rank these candidates:
1) Nader
2) Gore
3) Bush
4) Who was the ‘fourth’ main guy ?

If say Nader received the fewest votes of the 4 then he would be removed from the count and people’s second choice would be counted. There is more to this but it is the basic idea. ( Now If the Florida ballot was confusing, what would a ballot like this do? )

Anthony