"Electoral College Reform" article

Facts:

1. The electoral college is criticized for being undemocratic and that it is an unreliable device for selecting the President (i.e. Florida's experience).
2. The electoral college is "malapportioned" because each state gets two electoral votes, regardless its population, in addition to votes equal in its delegation in the House.
3. The Supreme Court required that state senators be elected from districts of equal population.
4. People typically don't add the number of votes that all the Republican and all the Democratic senatorial candidates receive in an election and compare the totals.
5. A pure democracy is not only undesired in our country, but also, unattainable; we have a flawed government system.
6. Having an election of the President by the House of Representatives (if no candidate received the majority of electoral votes) is the most democratic component of the governmental structure, which was created at Philadelphia in 1787.
7. In the 2000 election, the difference of votes between Bush and Gore was only 0.5%.
8. The Constitution leaves the manner of selecting electors to state legislatures, placing no limitations on the electors' choice among candidates.
9. The 2000 election was so close that only 3 of 538 electors could swing the election.
10. Gore would have had a plurality, but not majority, of the appointed electors, so the House would have chosen the President.

Questions:

1. If there is no doubt Gore really won in the 2000 election, why do people still question if he may have lost?
2. What does "hoi polloi" mean? 
3. What would the Founding Fathers' reaction be towards the Electoral College today?
4. How can the Electoral College be changed to lessen the possibility of a candidate losing the majority vote, when they should have gotten it?
5. What happens if two candidates tied between three candidates? Would the House have to vote between those two candidates?