This one promises to be as entertaining as the "Australian Acadmics" petition.

It's one to sign if you think that Al Gore is really your president.

It's got about 900 right now. I'm not sure which are funnier, the ignorant rants from the supporters ("...in my heart I just know he won..."), or the flames that start in the mid 800s (not coincidentally, about the time someone notified Free Republic about it).

You may want to save this petition before it gets taken off Internet.

Mega! A classic. I'm interestingly enough #1040. Uh-oh.

Oh, GAWD! "Martyr for democracy"? PUH-lease!

And "may our country remain divided by bitterness" while we spread bitterness with this petition.

As someone mentioned during the court fights, Richard Nixon refused to challenge the 1960 election despite known "irregularities". Gore is lower than Nixon.

The problem isn't Gore...the problem is that the entire electoral system has become seriously outmoded. It was the best they could do a couple hundred years ago, but some big improvements could be made today.

The problem isn't with the electoral system. It does what it's supposed to do, that is: Prevent the states with superior numbers from making all of the decisions regardless of the opinions of the smaller states.

Think what it would be like if a nominee would just need to get New York, Texas, and California residents to fall in with their opinion and they could win. All of the residents of the midwest (MT, WY, ND, SD, etc.) could just label themselves suburbs of a larger city because they each have a smaller population than Los Angeles.

Being from Montana, I understand how in a sense, my vote means more than a vote from one person in California. But I also know that if it didn't work that way, candidates wouldn't even look at the midwest, much less worry about their opinion.

People the world over criticize the American Democratic system. Well, it's a Democratic Republic. It would do us well to remember this and not just criticize the system for the results.

Adding to Ron's comment. Before you even think about changing the current system, imagine a Dade county recount played out as a national recount. Imagine the Chicago Democratic party nationwide. Imagine a nationwide Tammany Hall. The current system not only keeps a (very, very) small check on domination by the more populous states, it helps block corruption by keeping it smaller.

Run, Al, Run! The Republicans could use a "Gimmee" victory! Seriously, the entire "Al is the REAL president" schmeer just confirms something I've thought for years: The reason some people are diehard Democrats is that there's no other political party in the U.S. with admission standards quite as low...

I agree that it is necessary to keep the more populous states from dominating the others, and that the current system does a fairly good job of this. When I last posted, I was thinking more of the logistical aspects of voting - the fact that there is not a standardized format for the ballots (I think), and the fact that we are still having to deal with 'dimpled ballots' in the 21st century. Mainly, I was thinking that there are probably a lot of upgrades that could be made, technologically speaking, that would make the counting (and recounting) of votes much more efficient and accurate. I don't think I know enough to really debate the larger issue of the republic as a whole.

I find 'approval voting' to be intriguing...

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html

...other systems are linked from this pro opinion piece.

Here's a nugget for those that say an election wasn't fair... http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/arrows.htm