Here's a nightmare scenario. Colorado is placing on its November ballot, a proposition which would have its nine electoral votes divided in a proportionate manner — no "winner take all." If passed, it would go into effect before the next Electoral College convenes in December to pick the winner of the Bush-Kerry contest.
Now, this would probably be good for Kerry. At the moment, Bush is polling at 48% in that state with 43% for Kerry. Bush will probably win in Colorado so in the absence of this change, he'd get all nine votes. If this new rule goes into effect, Bush would probably get 5 votes and Kerry would get 4…or it might be 6-3. The point is that Kerry will probably get a few votes that he would not be receiving without the change.
The "nightmare" part of this would be if it goes through and Kerry wins the country by a few electoral votes. Does anyone think the Republicans would then not sue to invalidate the change and demand that all nine votes go to Bush? And suddenly, we're back in the Supreme Court.
Obviously, I hope that Bush loses in November. But what I really hope is that we have a clean election where the losing side doesn't have ample reason to think they were robbed, and the winning side doesn't have to pretend that their guy won fair and square.