The electoral college bears a special look in advance of the upcoming 2004 presidential election.

First, the background. The link above has one of the clearer explanations of the Electoral College that I’ve seen. In part, it reads:

The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read “George Bush” or “Al Gore,” you’re really voting for “John Smith” who is a Bush supporter or “Jack Jones” who is a Gore supporter.

Each state selects a number of electors equal to the sum of its senators and representatives. The 12th Amendment in 1804, along with the gradual calcification of the two-party system, helped create the winner-take-all system we have now.

Now consider this: In Colorado, voters November 2 will consider a ballot initiative, Amendment 36 that would award that state’s Electoral College votes proportionately based on the popular vote. For example, suppose President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry split the popular vote there with a 55/45 percentage breakdown. Bush would count five of the state’s electoral votes, and Kerry would take four. It would effectively thin that insulation between the popular vote and the President.

Proportional distribution isn’t new. Nebraska and Maine have variations. The first two electors go to the winner of the state and the remaining electors, three and two respectively, follow the majority votes in the states’ congressional districts.

The ballot initiative in Colorado to award electors based on popular vote stems from reactions to the 2000 fiasco that happened in Florida. Recall that, in the end, ballot counting, which had dragged on for weeks, was stopped when the Supreme Court intervened. A 5-4 decision put Bush in the White House.

(When I took media law in college, my professor told me that 5-4 decisions amounted to “weak law,” but that’s another post.)

It’s interesting to note that, had this initiative been in place in 2000, it’s likely Al Gore would be running for re-election now, instead of Bush.

Fast forward to 2004, and some Coloradans, like many Americans, hold a visceral grudge about the 2000 results. The wording of this initiative, whatever the idea’s merits, proves troublesome.

The election certification process referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection shall apply to the ballots cast for presidential tickets at the November 2, 2004 general election and at general elections held after 2004 at which presidential tickets are on the statewide ballot.

That means if the initiative passes - admittedly, a long-shot - the 2004 election, if it is as close on Election Day as it appears now, could face court challenges. Those challenges would move within weeks or days to the Supreme Court. No one can predict how that body might rule on the merits of a speculative case, but one could reasonably guess that Bush would enjoy four more years.

Regardless of conjecture on an outcome, consider the mechanism. A judicial outcome for the 2004 election would make two in a row - both attributable to the structure of the Electoral College.

Is this the way American’s want to elect their presidents? The prospect of flawed electoral mechanics leading to a judicial review a second time should scare advocates of representative government. We can do better.

Court intervention diminishes the votes of everyday people. Take my vote away once, shame on you. Take it away a second time, shame on me.

Perhaps it’s time to reconsider the value of the Electoral College. As I understand, its intended purpose is to offer balance - to subtly amplify the voices of rural areas and heartland states. The theory holds that, without it, mainly coastal population centers like New York City and Los Angeles would have a bully’s say in who sits in the Oval Office.

But, if court challenges become clockwork every four years, does the clumsiness of the Electoral College supersede any remedy it may offer?