Another bad idea from the Left, dishonestly promoted

CNN.com - Molly Ivins: How about some democracy in the U.S. of A.? - Mar 21, 2006:
"The Campaign for a National Popular Vote has a dandy new approach. Instead of trying to amend the Constitution through a long, difficult process that can and will be stalled by small sates, the campaign proposes a simpler, elegant solution. According to the Constitution, each state legislature can instruct its own electors to cast their votes however the state decides, usually as winner-take-all for whichever candidate carries the state. But there is no reason a state legislature cannot instruct its electors to vote for whomever wins the popular vote.
"Democracy! What a concept! The states can do this one-by-one, subscribing to an interstate compact that would take effect when enough states join to elect the actual winner -- a majority of the 538 electoral votes."

It appears that the folks pushing this lame idea have read the Constitution to suit themselves. They acknowledge that tossing out the electoral college is unlikely to pass the Congress and the requisite number of states, so they are proposing an end run strategy that conforms to the Constitution - or does it?

First, the Constitution says the state legislatures may determine the manner of selecting electors with a very few restrictions (no members of Congress or other federal employees may be chosen, the date for choosing may be set by Congress, etc.) but it dopes not say that the legislatures may dictate for whom the electors shall vote. That would certainly be contrary to what the founders intended.

Some states have laws requiring electors to vote for the presedential and vice presidential nominees of the same party that nominated them as electors. The enforceability of such statutes is questionable. And, in any event, the eventuality such laws are designed to prevent - the so-called "faithless elector" - has been a fairly rare occurrence. There was one such elector each in 1956, 1960, 1972 and 1976 - none had any effect on the outcome - only four "faithless" electors out of over 3,200 chosen in six elections.

The other problem, on the face of it, with this scheme is the "interstate compact" part. First, because the Constitution requires that such compacts have Congressional authorization; and, second, because they clearly intend to use the compact mechanism as a way to amend the Constitution. The compacts are intended to allow groups of states to address issues which directly relate to themselves and not the US generally - for example, controlling pollution in Chesapeake Bay only needs the exertions of the five states (plus DC) whose waters drain into it.

And, of course, nowhere to does Ivins mention the one great virtue of the electoral college - it limits the usefulness of stealing votes. In a purely popular vote election, there is a great incentive to steal as many votes as possible in every place you can. Under the electoral college system, once you have stolen enough votes in a state to claim a plurality there, you have no reason to keep piling up phony ballots. Thus, the electoral college means theives in New York or Illinois can't wipe out the votes of the folks in Wyoming.

Even in a thoroughly honest election, it is just silly to assume, as Ms. Ivins says, that a direct popular election will make politicking more uniform rather than confined to a few battleground states. The difference will be that the campaigns for president will focus on battleground media markets and those markets where your candidate is most popular. Each party will still shun their opponents' strongholds, but the basis for those decisions will be media markets not states.