A drive to change the way Americans elect their presidents is being pushed by a group that acknowledges Democrats stand to gain the most _ at least at first _ from tinkering with the Electoral College. The year-old Electoral Fairness Project, led by a Democrat, is trying to persuade states to abandon the winner-take-all method of doling out Electoral College votes to presidential candidates. The system has been nearly universal since 1836. But critics say it does not accurately reflect the popular vote and prompts candidates to avoid entire states they feel they can't win. Lately, the system has favored Republicans. ``In state after state, the voters are essentially written off by the numbers. People don't see the candidates, don't get a sense of what's going on,'' said Linda Tarr-Whelan, a board member of the Electoral Fairness Project. She said the changes advocated by the group ``would get people much more involved and would require candidates to look at virtually all the states and congressional districts at one time or another as they plan out their strategy.'' The Constitution determines how many electoral votes each state gets: one for each of its two senators and for each of its U.S. House members. How states divide up those votes is not dictated by the Constitution, but virtually all states award all their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. The fairness project wants other states to do what Maine did in 1969: give presidential candidates one electoral vote for each House district in which they win the popular vote, with the other two votes going to the winner of the statewide popular vote. The fairness project, run by Democrat Skip Roberts, admits its primary objective is to break the GOP lock on electoral votes in the South and parts of the Midwest. Some Republicans proposed the same changes 30 years ago when the GOP would have reaped the most benefit. But this year, state and national Republican leaders are heaping scorn on the tactic. ``The Democrats are resorting to gimmicks because they can't win on the strength of their ideas,'' said Ben Ginsberg, chief counsel to the Republican National Committee. Roberts denies he is promoting a gimmick. ``This is not a trick. You still need a nominee and a coherent campaign,'' he said. The Connecticut House adopted the fairness project's proposal this session but it died in the state Senate. In North Carolina, where the Republican governor has no veto, the House has passed the plan and the Democratic-controlled Senate was scheduled to vote today. Roberts still hopes that legislatures in Connecticut, New Jersey, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and Indiana will revise their electoral systems before 1992, when the impact of the changes can be tested. Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, contends the changes would generate major improvements affecting both parties. Gans said the revised electoral system would stimulate more grassroots campaigning and less reliance on ``demagogic media appeals'' and ``unaccountable political consultants.'' It also would produce an Electoral College vote that more closely reflects the popular vote, he said. Few political scientists are as enthusiastic, nor do they see it being embraced in many states. Many say its virtues are subtle at best _ it is slightly more democratic and might put a few more states on the presidential campaign trail. Larry Sabato, an analyst at the University of Virginia, said the district-by-district allocation of electoral votes might even discourage candidates from visiting certain states. Contenders often write off states whose electoral vote total is insignificant, Sabato said. Parceling out those votes by congressional district ``would give even less of an incentive to come,'' he said. Nevertheless, Sabato said he supports the change because it would lessen the likelihood of an Electoral College victory by a candidate who had received a minority of the popular vote. That almost happened in 1976, when Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford, and did happen three times between 1824 and 1888, he said. ``It would be a disaster today. I think people would take to the streets,'' Sabato said. That kind of emotion does not characterize the current debate. ``People just regard this as a woodwork issue,'' said Bruce Buchanan, a government professor at the University of Texas. ``It's way off the center of the plate.''
