Flunking Out of the Electoral College

I recently finished George Edwards' Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, which I dug. In it he uses pretty decent data to demolish the standing arguments in favor of the College, including such chestnuts as defending the interests of small states, empowering minorities, and forcing the candidates to campaign in more states. It is worth noting that Edwards is indeed number crunching here, rather than employing ethereal "feel good" pro-College arguments which often seem to contradict each other (the Electoral College forces the President to truly nationalize his campaign, and not be beholden to the narrow interests of large urban areas -- at the same time, it empowers the narrow interests of some special groups!! It's maaaaaagic.) There's some fascinating historical stuff in here, too, getting into the nasty crevices of elections we tend to skim right over in American History 101. There's a cursory discussion of how much the Founding Fathers really, reeeeally didn't much care for the College themselves, but landed on it as a.) a solution to dealing with the geography and limited communications of the time and b.) a way to get the fuck out of Philadelphia in the summer. Because until you have spent 14 hours 7 days a week jammed up against a sweaty Thomas Jefferson and that goddam "lucky wig" he refuses to get cleaned, you do not know discomfort.

I hope we get an updated edition of Edwards' book soon, with the 2004 election data crunched, but seeing as that election was focused on battleground/swing states even more than the 2000 election, I can't imagine any great variance in the results.

Once I'd finished it, however, it did occur to me: "Hey, I'm out of Skittles." And then it occurred to me: " Changing this is going to be a bitch, it'd probably be easier to do on a state-by-state level, as the Constitution empowers the states with the method by which they distribute their electors."

Luckily, far smarter humans than I not only figured this out quite a while ago, they've acted on it. From the usual suspects, this summary:

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes -- a minimum of 13 states, depending on population

[...]In the New York Legislature, Republicans introduced the bill, he said, and they support it in Illinois, Missouri and Colorado.

I believe it's now popped up in Lousiana, and keeps on rolling. Personally, I'd like to see something as important as direct elections enshrining the principle of equal representation dealt with on a Constitutional level, but seeing as the asshats in the Senate are too busy with the Gay Marriage and Flag Burning Amendments right now (get RIGHT ON THAT boys, not like we got a war going on any time soon), we'll have to accept this little jerry-rig until we get something slightly less resembling a clown show going on up on the Hill.