Playing Games With the Electoral College

I read an op-ed in the Register today that talks about an effort to undermine the Electoral College process of electing our presidents:

A great example is a bill passed on mostly partisan lines (all Democrats and one Republican voted yes) by the Assembly last week. Authored by Democratic Assemblyman Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, the bill is nothing short of a frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution. It does nothing to help California, but is part of a partisan agenda to change the way we elect presidents.

AB2948 would do the following: "[R]atify a specified interstate compact that requires the chief election official of each signatory state to appoint the slate of presidential electors that was nominated in association with the presidential ticket that received the largest national popular vote total."

In other words, California and some other big states would throw all their electors behind the winner of the national popular vote, rather than behind the winner in their respective states. Once enough states join this complicated plan, the effect would be simple: whoever wins the popular vote, wins the election.

This bill is part of a national campaign by a group of moderates and liberals to establish a direct democracy in the United States, as opposed the republican system of states that now exists. Although some activists have pushed such a system for 20 years, renewed impetus has come from the 2000 presidential race when Al Gore won the popular vote nationwide, but lost to George W. Bush on electoral votes.

If you think the Electoral College is a mess, wait until this gets enacted. With only popular vote as the deciding factor in the election, candidates will spend all their time in the big cities and heavily populated areas, while many states may never see a candidate at all. You could end up electing a president with very limited appeal in most of the country, but someone who can attract significant votes in large urban areas (such as Democrats).

This is a very bad idea, and if they don't like the Constitution form of electing our presidents, the appropriate action is to amend the constitution, not pass laws which undermine the Constitution.