An Interesting Proposal

I came across an interesting idea from E. J. Dionne Jr. in last Monday's Washington Post: States have begun a movement to bypass the Electoral College by passing legislation that will lead to popular election of the president.

How would this work? The Maryland State Senate passed a bill at the end of March "that would commit Maryland's 10 electors to voting for the winner of the nationwide popular vote...The law would not take effect unless states representing a 270-vote electoral college majority pass similar laws. The idea is to create a compact among states genuinely committed to popular rule."

I have long felt frustrated by the Electoral College and particularly so in 2000 when Bush defeated Gore, even though he received 543,895 fewer votes across the country. How can we call ourselves a democracy when the will of the majority is so circumvented?

There is talk each presidential election year about doing away with the EC, but it never goes anywhere because, until now, it was thought that it would require a constitutional amendment. That, in turn, would require the approval of three-quarters of the states, so "only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election."

As Dionne puts it:

"The American way of electing presidents is antiquated, impractical and dangerous...The democratic solution is for legislatures to agree to use their electoral votes to support the winner nationally. Devised by John R. Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University -- he also invented the scratch-off lottery ticket -- the idea has been advanced by the National Popular Vote compaign and, in Maryland, by state Sen. Jamie Raskin, a longtime champion of more democratic election and campaign finance laws. Comparable bills have been approved by one legislative chamber in Arkansas, Hawaii and Colorado.

"Opponents of popular election invent scary scenarios to continue subjecting our 21st-century nation to a system invented in the far less democratic 18th century. Most frequently, they warn about having to conduct a nationwide recount in a close election.

"But direct election of presidents works just fine in France and in Mexico, which managed to get through a divisive, terribly narrow presidential election last year. Are opponents of the popular vote saying our country is less competent at running elections than France or Mexico?

"Here's hoping Maryland sets off a quiet revolution that brings our nation's electoral practice into line with our democratic rhetoric. Individual citizens should have the right to elect their president -- directly."

I agree. What do you think?