Today's news from Afghanistan prompts some thinking on the institutional uncertainty that exists in the U.S. in the event of a disputed presidential election.   Do we want our Supreme Court to have the last word, or would we prefer a special-purpose Electoral Commission structured to be politically neutral between the competing candidates and parties?

[Please note: This comment originally appeared on Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog as part of his Fixing Election Administration series.]

Election reform should embrace a long-term perspective and include non-partisan administration of the voting process. Meanwhile, eliminating unconscionably long lines at the polls is a short-term imperative, as is the need for more data on which to base long-term reform.

It is too soon after the casting of ballots this year for any definitive pronouncements on exactly what reforms the new Congress should adopt in order to improve the voting process. Many of these ballots still remain to be counted. Although there already are calls for legislation that would revamp voter registration, for example, we are likely to learn much more over the next month about the way voter registration actually worked in 2008.

This year is the second presidential election since 2000. 1884 was the second presidential election since 1876. Can we learn anything useful from this historical parallel, as we prepare for Tuesday Night—and potentially beyond—wanting to know who won the presidential election?

Yes, and from 1916 as well: both involved a delay in determining the outcome of the presidential election, but neither involved kind of calamity that occurred in 2000 (or 1876).

A bill passed last week by a Senate committee that would allocate Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote would have a detrimental effect on the Hawkeye State, Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro said today.

A bill that pledges Iowa's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the state, was approved by the Senate State Government Committee on an 8-7 vote Monday. The effort is part of a national movement to break from the Electoral College system.

Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state’s presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.

New Mexico would join a handful of states banding together to change the way the president is elected under a bill making its way through the Legislature. The measure would pledge New Mexico's five electoral votes to the presidential candidate who gets the most votes nationwide - even if New Mexico voters chose a different candidate.

Gap at about 5000 votes, but only about 7000 provisional ballots to review.