States subverting the electoral college?

This is interesting [1]:

Picture it: On election day in some future year, a presidential candidate ends up with the most popular votes but not enough electoral votes to win.

It's a repeat of the 2000 election in which one contender, Democrat Al Gore, took the majority of the national popular vote, while the other, Republican George W. Bush, clinched the most electoral college votes and, hence, the presidency.

But this time there's a twist: A bunch of states team up and give all their electoral college votes to the nationwide popular-vote winner, regardless of who won the most votes in their state. Then, the candidate who garners the most citizen votes in the country moves into the White House.

Legislative houses in Colorado and California have recently approved this plan, known as the National Popular Vote proposal, taking it partway to passage. Other states, too, are exploring the idea of a binding compact among states that would oblige each of them to throw its electoral votes behind the national popular-vote winner.

That should make for some fun times in the future. I wonder what the SCOTUS would have done with this in 2000?

Whether this works or not it is more than past due to rid ourselves of the electoral college. There was a point when the college served a valuable function by forcing candidates to leave the densely populated urban areas and deal first-hand with the issues facing the rest of the country.

But give me a break. T.V., Internet, AM Radio, newspapers… presidential candidates don’t campaign in person to reach constituents – that’s what the media are for. They come now to make headlines and pander to their benefactors, that’s all. If they were campaigning for the popular vote only, their strategy would likely change very little. In other words, the electoral college is a relic who serves no function whatsoever except to create an artificial divide among federal elections. Time to let it go.

[2]