Electoral College and Vote 2004

Ezra at Pandagon makes this point (note the article link within to a discussion of Rasmussen at Matthew Yglesias' site):

I would just like to mention that in the context of this election, being tied is not necessarily a good thing. Now I don't know if Rasmussen is compensating for electoral votes, but my feeling is their national tracking poll is simply a snapshot of the general mood and is only trying to represent the population's opinion. As we remember, Gore won by this measure and lost (after the hijinks, etc) despite it. Since Democratic votes are in population-rich areas whose electoral influence is not necessarily equal to its votes while Republicans find dominance in rural communities who command more power-per-head, simply having more voters isn't enough. We need to either be way ahead, or ahead where it counts. Assuming recent trends hold true, and they probably will, tied is a bad thing.

However, I'll say what I told anyone who would listen in 2000: we should END the Electoral College. That no serious attempt to do so has been made in the four years since is an abomination.

(But, to be fair, I also wanted to disband the Supremes who decided it was more important to end the recounts to be fair to Bush than it was to continue the counts to be fair to the will of the goddamned people.)