OR YEARS, MOST Americans have ignored the Electoral College as a harmless nuisance. Not anymore. The collision between the electoral vote and the popular vote is no longer just a historical curiosity.
It's time to abolish the Electoral College and to count the votes of all Americans in presidential elections.
As one with my own experience contesting ballot irregularities, I can empathize with the situation facing both Vice President Al Gore and Governor George W. Bush. But this is about far more than any one candidate or the outcome of a particular election. At stake is public confidence in our electoral system.
Two centuries ago the Constitutional Convention considered many ways to select the president of the emerging republic, from popular election to assigning the decision to the Congress. The Electoral College was a compromise that reflected a basic mistrust of the electorate - the same mistrust that denied the vote to women, African-Americans, and people who did not own property.
The Electoral College may or may not have made sense in 1787. But through 21st-century eyes it is as anachronistic as the limitations on suffrage itself.
Whether or not you like the results of a particular election, whether you voted for Bush or Gore or Nader, your vote should count.
Some defend the Electoral College because it carries the weight of constitutional authority. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee I approach amending the Constitution with extreme caution.
But the 12th and 22d Amendments have already altered the system designed by the framers for electing the president, and until ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the Senate was elected not by the people but by state Legislatures.
If the Electoral College merely echoes the election results, then it is superfluous. If it contradicts the voting majority, then why tolerate it?
It is a remarkable and enduring virtue of our political system that our elections are credible and decisive - and that power changes hands in a coherent and dignified manner. Many other nations watch with envy as a US president welcomes his successor, often a political adversary, to the White House.
The Electoral College threatens that stability. Even this week's crash civics course yields only a glimpse of the problems it can cause.
Picture this: If Florida had been won by a favorite son candidate, depriving other candidates of the required 270 electoral votes, the election would have been thrown into the House of Representatives.
That process would take months to resolve. The electors don't even cast their votes until December. It's another month until those votes are counted. And if a single candidate still lacked a majority, the nightmare would just be starting.
The nation would be rudderless - caught between a lame-duck president and two or more potential successors.
Even in sleepy Colonial times, this would create enormous national anxiety. Given today's 24-hour media frenzy and America's superpower status, the impact is almost unimaginable. From financial markets to foreign terrorists, an extended period of confusion is an open invitation for trouble.
The Electoral College is not worth these risks. For months I have talked with colleagues who shared my concern that this could be the year when the electoral vote contradicts the popular will. For these reasons my first act of the 107th Congress will be to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College outright.
There is no partisan edge to this undertaking. It would not affect the outcome of Tuesday's election; in fact, I first proposed it when the pundits were predicting a popular vote win by Governor Bush. I will seek support from Republican, Democratic, and Independent colleagues. The ultimate beneficiary could be a candidate of any party.
I am under no illusion about the difficulty of enacting a constitutional amendment, which requires a congressional supermajority and approval by three-quarters of the states. But now is the time to act: While the sting of the contradiction is still fresh.
Historically, Congress has debated Electoral College reform only when faced with urgent public concern about specific elections. The Senate held hearings in 1992, when it appeared that the Perot candidacy might deadlock the Electoral College. After the three-candidate 1968 election, the House actually approved an amendment calling for direct elections, but it fell victim to a Senate filibuster.
Every other public official is chosen by majority vote. That's the way it's supposed to work in a democracy. For reasons both philosophical and practical, that's also how we should elect the president.
William D. Delahunt is US representative from the 10th Congressional District in Massachusetts.
