Another "Wrong Winner" in 2004?

[Gustaf]

In fact, it seems to me that the 2000 election has "legitimized" the Electoral College result over the Popular vote.  In any future close election, having a "wrong winner" will simply be a curiosity, "like the 2000 election", but hardly a serious concern.  

Interesting thoughts zork.  I disagree though about 2000 legitimizing the Electoral College simply because it's written into the Constitution, and therefore does not need to be validated by any election result or any reaction to an election result. It's legitimate because it's the law and is (virtually) impossible to change - no matter what C-Span callers on the Democrat line may say.
I wonder that folks said in 1888 though, when Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by nearly 1% but lost decisively in the Electoral College.  

Not to mention when Tilden won by 4% and still lost in the EC! Though that was fraud ,so maybe it doesn't count. To picture Bush as a wrong winner is wrong, since it is based on the notion that the American president is elected by the people, which he isn't. The best you can say is that he is elected by the states. The people more kind of shows its preference in the election. I think a more important point about the EC is the problem with faithless electors, since it makes the system fundamentally undemocratic. Coming from a country with proportional representation I find it weird that a quarter of the votes is enough to beat three quarters, but that's not the point.