On four occasions in our country's relatively short history, United States presidents have, despite losing the popular vote, been elected to serve as chief executive. In 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, the Constiutionally mandated Electoral College determined the winner of the presidential race, awarding the election to the candidate with the fewer votes.
John Koza, an engineering professor at Stanford University, argues that amounts to a 1 in 14 "failure rate" for democracy in America. Mr. Koza is now on a campaign to eliminate the role of the Electoral College in U.S. presidential elections. And, in a rather ingenious way. Rather than attempting to amend the Constitution, Mr. Koza is asking individual states to pledge their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, no matter who wins that state.
The debate hits full stride now in Colorado, a state that political analysts say presents a key test for the National Popular Vote project. So far, the states most receptive to doing away with the Electoral College have all been solidly Democratic -- not the swing states that have been high-profile players in presidential elections.
But Colorado last year joined a small cluster of newly minted swing states that drew a disproportionate share of candidate visits and campaign spending. It will now help answer the question of whether swing states will take the leap.
So far, four states representing 50 electoral votes have adopted the pledge: Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii. The concept has been endorsed by newspapers across the country, including The New York Times. (Link)
The bill is making progress in Colorado, having passed the House and now in the state Senate. Some suggest Colorado taking the pledge will have an influential effect on other "swing" states. No one, however, is making predictions the electoral college will be gone by 2012.