Late into the evening of Election Day, and even into the early morning hours, contention in the race for president was shared between three major candidates - the re-elected President Bush, Sen. John Kerry and lastly, the very process voters exercised at polls.

The 2000 presidential election left an indelible stain on our Electoral College. If it really was 537 votes that sent Bush to the Oval Office and Al Gore to the lecture circuit, some voters felt that a more representative method should be in place. Still, others felt it was theoretically impractical to call an election before all votes had been cast. The complaints of the electoral college were stacked higher than its praises, and even if for a brief second, its existence was questioned.

Four years later, we've all learned that not much has changed. A recent study by The Associated Press found that most Americans were pleased with the decisive nature of last week's election, and that sentiment is parlaying into renewed confidence in national politics. We respectfully disagree. Last week's election didn't have a decisive plotline. Ohio was perilously close to becoming the new Florida. The only decisiveness about the presidential election was Kerry's decision to accept defeat rather than drag his country and the Electoral College through the same process it went through four years ago.

If anything, this study shows us that American voters are guilty of a short-term memory. The aftermath of 2000 was an aberration in the realm of presidential elections, forever remembered for its litigation and suspicion rather than its efficiency. How quickly we've created a new standard for the electoral college. Just like 2000, 2004's election wasn't how presidential elections are intended to be decided.

Before we put the Electoral College on trial, we should try to invest some faith in it first.