prez vote difference over last 80 years

FranciscoBizzaro: Another nice element to the EC is it provides instant, indisputable outcomes. It avoids teh need for a nationwide recount and the attendant disruption that would cause.

yes and no
how often has there been a need for a statewide recount for a presidential ballot? not very common

how often was the vote difference nationwide close enough that you would really need/require a nationwide recount?

certainly it would be NICE if we had a national voting platform, rather than the crap we have right now. (optical scan gets my vote, paper trail ftw)

IF we did vote directly for prez, would certainly make for interesting recount issues. but in the end, you would techinically only need to recount when the vote is close enough that tampering could have effected the outcome.
difference
2008 10m
2004 3m
2000 450k - hmmm, maybe a nationwide recount would have been a good thing. we spend billions on the campaign, a recount would be a 10th of that. worth it. esp if it found and fixed fraud.
1996 8m, 1992 6m, 1988 8m, 1984 17m (lol), 1980 18m (lol), 1m, 1972 18m (nixon!),
1968 500k (man, a nationwide recount would have been a nice way to avoid nixon!!)
1964 16m,
1960 100k (boy did we need a recount for this one!!)
9m, 7m, 2m, 3m, 5m,
1936 11m (523-8 nice fdr), 7m,

so as you can see, there has only been 3 elections in the last 80 years where the numbers were close enough to think about a recount. it has been predicted that in the future, presidential elections will be closer and closer, with more karl rovian electorial math driving where the dollars get spent. Hillary claimed that she was the better candidate using this thinking. she could win the critical states. Obama turned it aorund and used grassroots to try to win every state.

so unless we see a change in voting, I dont think recounts will be a major issue/worry.