The Electoral College (and the Supreme Court) gave the 2000 US presidential election to GW Bush over Al Gore despite that fact that Mr Gore won the popular vote. It wasn't the first time this happened. In 1876 the Electoral College, based on an electoral margin of one vote (181 to 180), gave the election to Rutherford Hayes (R) over Samuel Tilden (D)despite the fact that Mr Tilden had popular vote majority of over 5%! Al Gore's popular vote majority was about 0.5%. But this is not the most dangerous aspect of the Electoral College. There have been a number of presidents who did not win popular majorities, but with two exceptions (Jefferson, 1800 and John Quincy Adams, 1824) all won electoral majorities. The US Constitution provides that in the case of no one winning an electoral majority, the newly elected House of Representatives chooses the president from among the top two or three candidates. The governing 12th amendment says "...But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by the states, the representation from each state having one vote." In other words, does each state have just one vote regardless of the size of its delegation in the House? I can a see a very serious dispute over just what "the representation" means. The 12th amendment was revision of the language in the original Article II. The revision concerned changing the election of the Vice-President as the one having the second most electoral votes, to the election of President and Vice-President running on a single ballot. However, it's clear from the original language of Article II that the founders wanted each state to have just one vote in choosing the president if such a vote were necessary. Should a world power like the US have any ambiguity in how its leader is chosen? And if it is interpreted as one state, one vote; is that something the American people can live with?