Defense of the Electoral College

The WSJ’s Opinion Journal has an analysis of the Electoral College debate. A few key points:

1. Using the Popular Vote would not necessarily mean a candidate would win with a majority:
In six postwar elections--1948, 1960, 1968, 1992, 1996 and 2000--no candidate had a popular majority. If it's an outrage against majority rule that President Bush was elected while receiving only 47.9% of the popular vote, would it be that much less so if Mr. Gore had won with 48.4%? And what about Bill Clinton, who mustered a mere 43% of the popular vote in 1992?

2. The Popular Vote would encourage nasty recount demands and legal challenges in every county. While, "Let Every Vote Count," may be the rallying cry of voter reform activists, the practicality of using the Popular Vote would throw national elections into gridlock. The Electoral College serves the function of making each vote count within each state, while providing a feasible way of holding national elections.

3. Any Constitutional changes to the Electoral College would have to be approved by 38 state legislatures, most of which would be voting against their self-interests

The article also reviews Colorado’s Amendment 36, calling it:

…a transparently partisan effort to give Mr. Kerry a few additional electoral votes, and Coloradans, even those who support the Democrat, would be foolish to back a measure that would diminish their state's influence by taking most of its electoral votes out of play.

Cross-posted at TyroBlog