Before you all jump on me for dredging up old news, this is a thread about electoral reform, NOT about who won vs. who we wanted to win the election. Let's keep it that way. Is this logical in an electoral system? What if 66,000 people moved from Seattle to Anchorage? 22,000 from L.A. to Las Vegas? 100,000 from New York to West Virginia? 80,000 from WA to ND? 90,000 from CA to SD? None of those moves would nudge the popular vote by even one vote, but all of them could change the electoral vote. All at once, and suddenly Kerry wins the election. Why should an election for nationwide office depend, when it comes down to it, on who lives where? I'm not saying the above could, or should happen, but it strikes me as a huge logical hole in our system. No other democracy in the world (that I know of - correct me if I'm wrong) uses something like this. Nor do the countries in which we've forcefully installed democracy. Does this mean we don't believe in our own system? Seems to me that we all know it's silly and antiquated, but as a culture we're too lazy to fight the people who live off the status quo for some kind of reform. If someone can tell me why the system makes sense for a 21st century democracy, I'd love to hear it.