The 'bi-partisan' Commission on Federal Election Reform has been hearing evidence of all that went wrong with the 2004 Presidential Election. Aside from the usual gripes of long lines, confusing ballots, and inadequate staffing, the evidence included statements like this:

"In the 2004 presidential election, the United States came much closer to electoral meltdown, violence in the streets and constitutional crisis than most people realize," professor Richard Hasen of Loyola Law School said in his written comments. "Less than a 2 percent swing among Ohio voters -- about 100,000 voters -- toward Democratic candidate for president John Kerry and away from incumbent Republican President Bush would have placed the Ohio -- and national -- election for president well within the 'margin of litigation,' and it would have gotten ugly very quickly."

Disappointed Kerry supporters continue to play 'what if'. I will once again defer this one to Nathan Gonzales, who way back in January aptly pointed out:

If 5,000 voters had switched in New Hampshire, Bush would have carried the state. If 6,000 voters had switched in Wisconsin, Bush would have carried that state. And if 34,000 voters had switched in Oregon, Bush would have carried it also. So, in this backward hypothetical world, Bush wins reelection with a considerable 307 electoral votes.

Gonzales' scenario requires only 45,000 voters going the other way, from three different states. Hasen's requires nearly 60,000 voters changing their mind, all in the state of Ohio.