Tara Ross is the author of Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.

Many Electoral College opponents believe that they have reason to rejoice this month. The newest effort to change the American presidential election system, the Campaign for the National Popular Vote (NPV), is gaining momentum in a handful of states. Most recently, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation sponsored by NPV. Similar legislation sits on the desk of Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich and awaits his signature. approved the legislation last year.

The NPV legislation requires participating states to enter into an interstate compact with other like-minded states. These states would agree to allocate their entire slate of electors to the winner of the national popular vote.  The compact would go into effect when states representing 270 electoral votes (enough to win the presidency) have agreed to its terms. At least in theory, the eleven most populous states could make this change on their own, without consulting the small states, because the largest states currently have 271 electoral votes among them.

Yes, that’s right. The Electoral College could essentially be eliminated, replaced with a direct popular vote system, without the bother of a constitutional amendment. Is this end-run around the amendment process constitutional? Probably, although there is an argument that congressional approval would be needed for the interstate compact. The Constitution is broad in its grant of authority to the states, and it is generally agreed that the legislatures may appoint their states’ electors in any manner that they choose. Article Two is straightforward, providing that “[e] shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . .” Indeed, today’s “winner-take-all” system was not always the norm in American presidential elections. Instead, the states relied upon a wide variety of methods for the appointment of electors during the first several presidential elections. The question is not whether the states can pass the NPV legislation. They can. The more relevant question is whether they should pass the legislation.

Some voters and state legislators will default upon the assumption that any plan to bypass the Electoral College is a good thing. The system is misunderstood, and conventional wisdom holds that the Electoral College is outdated, unfair, and undemocratic. But it is always dangerous to eliminate or change constitutional provisions without first seeking to understand why those provisions were originally enacted. At a minimum, legislators and voters should strive to educate themselves on the history and justifications for the Electoral College before they casually default upon support for such a radical change to our political system.

Voters have many misperceptions about the Electoral College.  Many believe that “only” swing states matter in modern-day American presidential elections. Such a perspective makes the mistake of focusing too exclusively on only one or a handful of election years. Once states’ full histories of voting are studied, it becomes apparent that the identity of “swing” and “safe” states changes all the time. As recently as 1988, voted consistently Republican. was a safe Democrat state until it began voting Republican in 1980. In reality, the Electoral College creates a healthy political dynamic that requires political parties to reach out to voters nationwide.

Similarly, many voters operate under the false assumption that the Electoral College is an inherently unfair and undemocratic process. But the country does hold democratic presidential elections: Fifty-one purely democratic presidential elections are held each year, one in each state and one in the . Democratic principles are an important aspect of the Electoral College, but they are combined with the principles of republicanism and federalism. These latter principles prevent our country from degenerating into a system where 51 percent of voters can tyrannize over 49 percent of voters at the drop of a hat. Yet most voters do not know how or why republican and federalist principles were included in the U.S. Constitution. Why would they? By and large, this aspect of constitutional history is not taught in American schools.

Finally, many voters are likely to note that the President “should be the person whom most Americans support.” But human nature makes such an outcome impossible. Fifty-one percent of Americans will never agree on the identity of the “best” American President.  Left to their own devices, voters would instead fracture their votes across half a dozen or more candidates. The NPV legislation exacerbates the problem, because it does not even require a run-off. A candidate winning the nationwide tally with a plurality of 30 percent of the vote could win the White House. Such a candidate does not represent “most” Americans. The Electoral College, at least, makes voters come together and agree on a good compromise candidate who will satisfy most Americans as represented by their states.

Speaking in support of the Electoral College, John F. Kennedy once referred to the checks and balances in the Constitution as a “solar system” of power: “[I]t is not only the unit vote for the Presidency we are talking about,” he noted, “but a whole solar system of governmental power. If it is proposed to change the balance of power of one of the elements of the solar system, it is necessary to consider all the others.” ’s constitutional system of checks and balances works as a whole, taken together. Eliminating the Electoral College would get rid of only one of several protective devices. Perhaps the impact would be minimal, as anticipated by many direct election proponents. On the other hand, it could throw the physics of the entire solar system (as JFK would say) out of balance.

In such an event, Electoral College opponents may find that their celebration has turned to mourning.