Actually, we don't know who the votes would have gone to in 2004, because many votes are never counted in states where the vote is not close. If all votes were counted in 2004, John F'n Kerry might have had more.
The real problem with this plan, of course, is that it defeats the non-proportional representation that was engineered into the US Constitution. The votes of people in smaller states are worth more than the votes of people in larger states under the Electoral College system, because the smaller states have disproportionally high representation. This was done intentionally to limit the power of the larger states and to encourage the smaller states to accept union with them.
The logic today is the same as it was then. This compact should not be legal. There is no way any reasonable judge could conclude that "One man, one vote", with all votes being weighed equally, was the intent of the Framers, when they carefully crafted a system that does not achieve this.
Of course, reasonable judges are in short supply, these days, so what the courts would decide is anybody's guess.
> we don’t know who the votes would have gone to in 2004, because many votes are never counted in states where the vote is not close. If all votes were counted in 2004, John F’n Kerry might have had more. <
Possible, but not likely. And the same may be said about the 2000 election.
At the heart of the matter...across the entire nation...90 percent of the public have no concept of the republic or how it functions. If one sat down and explained representation...how fair or unfair it works...and how the powers of the house versus the senate conflict with no great result, then we might be better off. I see a total lack of education on the electoral college in high school and college-level.