How about some democracy?

Iowa Senate Democrats have pushed a bill out of committee that would effectively render the electoral college useless in future presidential elections, and it appears the bill has the steam to move forward.

Axing the electoral college has been a popular idea since Al Gore lost to George Bush in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. However, removing the electoral college from the Constitution is an unwieldy process. Instead, John Koza, a Stanford University professor, proposed a run-around on the Constitution.

As it stands, the Constitution permits states to award their electoral votes however they choose. However, if a group of states carrying at least 270 electoral votes pledged to give those votes to the winner of the national popular vote, that candidate would be guaranteed to win. The legislation in Iowa and other states would not take effect until enough states followed suit.

It’s a great idea. One person, one vote. Whoever gets the most votes wins. It works for every other public official election — why not for the presidential election?

Opponents of the idea say the electoral college protects smaller states by awarding electoral votes disproportionately to states with smaller populations. Iowa Republicans have jumped on this train, as has Democratic Secretary of State Michael Mauro.

But that’s the theory, not the practice. According to National Popular Vote, Koza’s organization for electoral college reform, in 2004, candidates put more than two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; more than 80 percent in nine states; and more than 99 percent in 16 states.

This leads to a protected class of battleground states. In Iowa, we’ve benefitted from the system because we have seven electoral votes. But who’s to say Iowa will stay a battleground state in the next few decades?

Rural areas won’t be ignored under a national vote system — after all, do we escape national ad campaigns because we live in Iowa? Coke doesn’t ignore Iowa because it has fewer citizens than Texas. Just the same, presidential candidates will be forced to appeal to the masses across the country, not just in closely-contested states.

Ultimately, it would be wonderful to see the electoral college removed from the U.S. Constitution. It’s the American thing to do. But, as it requires a two-thirds vote in the both the House and the Senate, it’s unlikely that such a measure would pass — too many battleground states benefit from the way things are. For now, the best compromise is to pass this legislation through.