It couldn't happen again.

Or could it?

In 2000, George W. Bush became the first president since Benjamin Harrison in 1888 to win an election without gaining more popular votes than his opponents.

In what is expected to be another close election, there is a possibility that it could happen again.

"It shows some of the flaws with the Electoral College and it raises the question of what a democracy is," College Democrats President Megan Green said. "Is it the popular vote or the electoral vote?"

But getting rid of the Electoral College because of past history is another story. Political science professor James Eisenstein said that even if the winner in the next election would win the Electoral College vote and lose the popular vote, it would be very unlikely that the country would do away with the Electoral College system.

"It's like saying we're going to eliminate death and taxes," Eisenstein said. "It's not going to happen barring some catastrophic political crisis where everything would be up for grabs."

Eisenstein said it would be interesting to see how Republican operatives would react if the situation in this year's election were reversed and President Bush would receive more popular votes than Sen. John Kerry, but not have the majority of electoral votes.

Kellie Sims Butler, assistant professor of political science, said that since the popular vote winner has lost the election before it is nothing new.

"I don't think it'll be the straw that breaks the camel's back," she said.

The method for electing the president of the country can only change through an amendment to the Constitution, and this is fairly difficult. The amendment has to pass with a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. Next, the measure has to be ratified by three-fourths of the 50 states.

"I can't see the smaller states going along with a plan to get rid of the Electoral College," Eisenstein said. "A far more feasible change would be to apportion the electoral votes in the states other than the winner takes the plurality."

Eisenstein said Maine uses such a system. There, two electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the plurality of votes in the state, while one electoral vote goes to the winner of each of two congressional districts in the state. Nebraska uses the same system, and Colorado is voting to do so during this election.

"This aligns the electoral votes more in tune with the popular votes in the state," Eisenstein said.

Another proposed change would simply make the electoral votes proportional. For example, if a candidate won 33 percent of the votes in a state with 10 electoral votes, he would receive three of them.

Eisenstein said there are at least four problems with the present Electoral College system.

The first is that the system gives disproportionate power to smaller states because all states are guaranteed two votes. Second, it is a winner-take-all system. If a candidate wins the state by 1 percent of the popular vote, he or she will take all of the votes. Third, the system affects where candidates are going to campaign.

Finally, Eisenstein said the biggest effect the system has is that it opens up the possibility of the winner not receiving the most votes.

Glenn Thompson, Centre County Republican chair, agreed with Green and said it's entirely possible for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election.

"It's going to be a close election -- anything can happen," Thompson said. "It's happened at certain times in our past, but I'm not going to make any predictions."