By December 22, each state will submit its votes in the real presidential election at the Electoral College, ratifying what amounts only to an advisory vote taken by the public on November 4th. Many states do not even require their electors to follow the will of their voters. A Minnesota elector has already cast a vote for John Edwards instead of John Kerry. Congress will count these votes, the real votes for President, on January 6th.

The Electoral College is nothing short of an embarrassing blight on American democracy. But given the long odds of passing a constitutional amendment, nobody has much appetite to take on the challenge of abolishing it. Voters, however, could render it obsolete by nominating presidential primary candidates who mutually agreed to abide by the results of the popular vote in the general election.

As we send troops and funds to spread democracy abroad, nobody seriously suggests that Afghanistan, Iraq, or anyone else should choose their president by an elite group of electors instead of by popular majority. In a modern world where the legitimacy of a government derives from the consent of the governed, there's simply no justification for an elections system that allows the minority to rule. Yet our Electoral College does just that.

Some cling to the Electoral College for its supposed stability, but it is anything but stable. Had just 22,000 voters in Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico switched their votes from Bush to Kerry, this last election would have been thrown to the House of Representatives in an electoral college tie. While the Republican House would likely have elected Bush anyhow, the outcry from Democratic activists would have destabilized and divided the country.

Others defend the Electoral College by pointing out that it gets it right most of the time. But in four out of fifty-five elections, the College has selected someone who lost the popular vote - a failure rate of seven percent. We're all familiar with what happened in the 2000 election, but not many realize that it nearly happened again in 2004. If 60,000 Ohio voters had switched from Bush to Kerry, the Massachusetts Senator would be the president-elect despite clearly losing the popular vote.

Most of us tolerate this embarrassing institution primarily because we don't see any way around it. There have been some 700 attempts to alter or get rid of the Electoral College and all have failed. The most recent real effort came in 1969, when the House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment 338 to 70 abolishing the Electoral College. Polls at the time showed 81% support. Despite endorsement by President Nixon, the amendment died when it only received 54 votes in the Senate, 13 short of the required two-thirds.

Even if our current Senate could muster the needed 67 votes for a constitutional amendment, it would need to be ratified by three quarters of the states. Many small-state voters are beginning to realize that the Electoral College advantages swing states more than small ones, but small state legislators may be more provincial. It takes 13 state legislatures to block enactment of any constitutional amendment.

But voters could take matters into our own hands by nominating both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates who pledge to sign a mutual agreement that instructs their chosen electors to vote for whichever candidate received the most popular votes. The agreement would need to be in place by January 1 of 2008, so that both sides would know the rules for the general election ahead of time.

There is strong historical precedent for politicians voluntarily abiding by the popular vote even when not required to. Our constitution originally called for US Senators to be elected by state legislatures. As concern over this anti-democratic procedure grew, voters in Oregon began conducting straw polls for US Senate candidates on their state ballots and instructing their state legislators to vote for the Senate candidate who won the popular vote. State legislators did as they were instructed. Other states followed suit, leading to de facto popular election of US Senators in more than half the states by 1912. After a critical mass of Senators had been elected by this method, there were finally enough votes to pass the 17th amendment through the US Senate in 1913 and require direct election for all Senators.

Given Al Gore's experience in 2000 and Bush's near-death experience with the 2004 electoral vote, now is the perfect time for both parties' candidates to embrace this reasonable approach. With such prominent figures as Bob Dole and Hillary Clinton opposing the Electoral College, it is more than possible that both parties could nominate candidates in 2008 who are willing to abide by the popular vote. If voters begin demanding this now, we might just make it happen.