It's always enjoyable and easy to accuse the other side of being hypocrites if you are a pundit. Takes barely any effort - and that's exactly the amount of effort our pundit class likes to put forth.

Bryant

As my South African co-worker said, "Not bloody likely"

As for the hypocrisy, are you really surprised?

It is like the team with more hits and less runs in baseball or the football team with more yardage and less points. The popular vote does not matter once the rules of the game are set. It was that way in 2000, it is that way today.

The stupidity of people simply amazes me.

Maybe we should go back to white, land owning males

while the insanely expensive, yet totally unecessary Iraq War was going on under Shrub-Dr. Evil?

Personally, I've been against the anachronistic Electoral College for years, but has there ever been truly serious consideration to abolishing it?

since we have the numbers on our side (as we'll see by tomorrow) and they don't.

Currently, though, when we have Democrats like President Obama (fired up and ready to go!) we win both the EC and the PV, we snag the EC as well. If we put lackluster Democrats up who don't know how to "speak" to the people, yes, we traditionally lose in the EC.

when it should only have one vote, they should be happy. The system is dishonest, and it takes representation away from people in more populous states and gives our power to people in areas that just don't matter. They should be happy with this broken system because they're the ones taking advantage of it to screw us over.

the popular vote/electoral vote disparity is a minor issue compared to vote-counting fraud.

in fact simply basing electoral votes solely on house seats rather than house plus senate seats would go a long way toward reducing the problem as it would make end the small-state favoritism.

but the winner-takes-all element does one very significant thing as far as vote-counting fraud is concerned -- it keeps the fraud concentrated in states that are roughly evenly split between the two parties, i.e., the states where fraud is hardest to pull off.

removing the winner-takes-all aspect would shift the fraud to highly partisan states and districts and even precincts where it's far easier to pull off.

But they were saying in 2000 that if you couldn’t win your home state (Gore – TN) then you don’t deserve the Presidency.

When Romney loses ‘both’ his home states (MA, MI) and Ryan loses his (WI), I wonder if they’ll be uttering those words?

I’m betting not!

Four More Years!!!

Felt the urge to slap them all but I like my tv.

After we kicked up a fuss about Florida and Gore getting half a million more votes than GW, all we heard from the right was "move on",
"Get over it."

Campaigning would change, and the Obama machine is terrific. They'd take it all into account and campaign in different places.

It is interesting how big cities are blue - even in red states, the cities are blue. So it might mean Democrats taking the cities for granted and campaigning there only a little and a lot of campaigning in suburbs/rural areas.

It would actually disadvantage Republicans, because Democrats would end up campaigning in Idaho, etc. while Rs could not make much of a dent in the big cities.

Imagine having to worry about the integrity of the voting machines in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

Obama will get a landslide in popular vote and electoral vote.