A Stitch in Haste

More evidence, courtesy of Wired, supporting my previous argument that adjusting the Electoral College from a (mostly) winner-take-all system to the District Method is preferable to a simple popular vote:

State and county election officials from around the country are praying that this year's presidential race ends with a wider margin of victory than it did four years ago when George W. Bush beat Al Gore in Florida by only 547 votes. A close victory this year would likely result in more charges of voter fraud and calls for recounts, two things that election officials don't relish.
...
"If election 2000 was under a microscope, this one's probably under an electron microscope"[said an election conference director].
...
[T]he United States has nearly 200,000 polling places and 800,000 voting machines. There are also 1.4 million poll workers and 20,000 full-time election officials who administer elections.
...
"We're under attack this time because it is a campaign strategy, and party strategies, to put the process itself at risk. If you call the process into question, it gives you standing then in court before you get there," he said.

As I have blogged previously: The electoral infrastructure in the United States simply cannot accommodate pure popular election of presidents. A massive modernization (and standardization) program -- whether electronic or not -- would have to precede any movement toward total abolition of the Electoral College.

I also have posts on the Colorado proposal and the never-ending Florida recount.