A Stitch in Haste

E.J. Dionne thinks so:

Yes, this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution. That's the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system. Because three-quarters of the states have to approve an amendment to the Constitution, only 13 sparsely populated states -- overrepresented in the electoral college -- could block popular election.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

Put aside the pesky problem that the proposed Electoral Compact is likely null and void (interstate compacts require pre-authorization from Congress under Article 1, Section 10). Put aside also the Fourteenth Amendment questions of "one person, one vote" -- which, contrary to Dionne, would not be reinforced by the Electoral Compact but obviously undermined by it.

Focus instead on Dionne's simple factual error that the Electoral Compact is "the only practical way of moving toward a more democratic system." There's another way, a far easier, more straightforward and totally constitutional way to bring the Electoral College closer, much closer, to reflecting the popular vote:

The District Method:

This method divides electoral votes by district, allocating one vote to each district and using the remaining two as a bonus for the statewide popular vote winner. This method of distribution has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither state has had a statewide winner that has not swept all of the Congressional districts as well.

The District Method has several advantages to winner take all: It would turn many "throwaway" states into at least partially competitive states (e.g., Republicans, who generally ignore New York State, would campaign in at least some upstate regions in an effort to win at least some Districts and their Electoral votes). Most importantly, the probability of an Electoral/popular divergence is vastly reduced. Indeed, it practically becomes impossible. Isn't that the overarching goal of calls for reform?

Furthermore, the District Method has a decisive advantage over a pure popular vote: lawsuits. A contested District here or there is unlikely to matter to the outcome of the election, unlike Florida 2000. (Had only the Electoral vote of West Palm Beach County been disputed, rather than the entire Florida slate, then there never would have been a Bush v. Gore.) But with a pure popular vote, then every polling place, every voting machine, every ballot, becomes a potential lawsuit in a close race. Tens of thousands of lawsuits -- to "preserve democracy"? That simply cannot be right.

The District Method achieves everything that the Electoral College's malcontents claim to seek, with no legal or constitutional infirmities and no cognizable downside. So if would-be reformers like Dionne don't embrace it, then it is safe to conclude that they in fact have ulterior motives beyond "preserving democracy."