But if that happened, and at the same time Bush got a sizeable number more popular votes, the way Gore did, would your reaction, Doug be "this means something is wrong and the electoral system needs changing", or "win some ,lose some, it worked our way last time, it's their turn now"?

I rather assume that your response would be the latter, since you didn't see Bush's victory as a reason to change the electoral college system.

One interesting scenario would be if, faced with a situation where it was neck and neck in the electoral college, but where the candidate trailing had won more popular votes, enough electors were to refuse to stick with the candidate who had won in their state, and vote for the one who won the popular voted across the country.

Would people see this as justifiable? And would this judgement be affected by which candidate won as a result?

I do get the impression that, for a lot of people posting in these threads, the notion of being even-handed about these things is a pretty alien concept.