Last modified: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 12:13 AM EST Is nation's Electoral College necessary? BY MAITE JULLIAN FOR THE SUN CHRONICLE BOSTON - With the presidential campaign in full swing, Massachusetts legislators are studying a bill that would replace the Electoral College that now formally elects the president with a streamlined process that gives final victory to the candidate with the highest national popular vote. If passed by a majority of the states, the National Popular Vote bill would create a compact of states that would pledge their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, even if it meant ignoring a majority of the state voters. "It will commit all Massachusetts votes to whoever wins the national popular vote, no matter how Massachusetts voted," said Rep. Steve D'Amico, D-Seekonk, who supports the bill. "We don't eliminate the Electoral College, but we make it irrelevant." The National Popular Vote bill was first proposed in February 2006 by a commission, including former U.S. Rep. John Anderson, R-Illinois, John Buchanan, R-Alabama, and former Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Indiana. It was filed in the Massachusetts legislature last January by Rep. Charles Murphy, D-Burlington. Supporters say the bill would open up presidential elections to all states, bringing in candidates to campaign for votes everywhere - not just the so-called battleground states where votes are always close. And, they say the new plan would require candidates to spend more time in states once seen as solidly in support of one party or candidate. In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won the electoral vote over Democrat Al Gore, even though Gore had a slightly higher number of the total popular vote. "The fact that somebody can lose the popular vote and win the presidency is based on an archaic system. It's a little out of date," D'Amico said. "This bill is a way to restore democracy to elect the president." In the 2004 election, President Bush and his challenger, Sen. John Kerry, spent little time and money in Massachusetts because it was seen as a "safe state" for the Democrats. Proponents say the non-partisan bill has a strong support in the Legislature with as many as 100 legislators supporting it. But it also faces opposition. State Rep. Jay Barrows, R-Mansfield, believes things should stay the way they are. "I am not supportive of it. The Electoral College is the way that each state is involved in the electoral process," he said. Barrows said the way to increase voters' participation is to "get back in schools and teach civics, not change the existing system." State Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, is another opponent even though he is a member of the Joint Committee on Electoral Laws that voted favorably on the bill last October. "I don't believe it is going to pass in Massachusetts," he said. "We value the Electoral College, it is part of our history. If we eliminate it, we lose some of the integrity of the process." State Rep. John Lepper, R-Attleboro, said he leans toward the idea of a national popular vote, but he thinks the plan would diminish the vote of the states that are not part of the compact. "I still haven't made up my mind," he said. "I have yet to be convinced that the matter of compact is without flaws." Supporters of the plan say a provision in the Constitution would allow the shift in presidential elections. It would not go into effect until enough states - representing at least 270 electoral votes - have passed it. So far, the bill has passed in Maryland and New Jersey and it is under consideration in 47 states, according to Common Cause, a non-profit organization lobbying for the bill. "This bill has a true potential to revitalize political participation in the country," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts. "It will also result in less fraud and partisan manipulation and ensure that the candidate who is elected is supported by the most number of people." "In states equally divided between Republicans and Democrats, you only need a thousand votes to change and you get all the votes," Wilmot said. She considers that the bill would turn the Electoral College into a "rubberstamp for the national popular vote." Although the proposal in Massachusetts has passed through committee, it is not scheduled for a vote before the Legislature. "I don't think it's a priority and I don't even think the House will vote on it," Brown said. If others are more uncertain on the bill's future, its supporters have high hopes. "I would be surprised if we don't support it," D'Amico said. "I am going to ask that we vote on it. This bill is for democracy." Maite Jullian works for the Boston University Statehouse Program, of which The Sun Chronicle is an affiliate.