If we got rid of the electoral vote system....

[muon2]

It would be more boring, but...
I don't like the current system either. Al Gore should have been elected President in 2000. It really sucks, especially for him and his supporters. More Americans supported him. I wish they could divide it into 3 parts, and you have to get 2 of them to win. Like...
1. Electoral Vote
2. Popular Vote
3.

Unfortunately, all systems have glitches when elections get close. Even a pure FPTP election has the problem that a small but certain percentage of the ballots will be ambiguous in some way. The right question to ask is what system would you like to resolve the outcome when votes are close or there is no clear majority?

For instance, if FL had instant runoff voting for the electors when no party got 50% of the vote, there's a good chance that Gore would have won. In that case a change to the EC would not have been necessary, just a change to FL law.

[muon2]

To avoid boredom and a redux of 2000, you have to pass a law in all 50 states dividing the Electors like Nebraska's and Maine's. Then we would still have suspence on Election Day, and there would be even less of a chance of the E.C.-winning candidate loosing the P.V.

Epic fail. As proved in a thread recently, gerrymandering would give republicans a significant advantage in every election.

Doesn't make sense to me....even though you always claim this. Why don't Republicans have a totally didproportionate share in the House if gerrymandering only benefits them?

It was shown that with the Maine-Nebraska method, Bush still would have won 2000 (with a larger margin!), even though his popular vote was less:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers/m21.php

That's in part because we have no agreed criteria for CDs other than racial and language minority protection under the VRA. This allows politically gerrymandered districts that tilt the balance during competitive elections.