The U.S. Electoral College as the means by which a president is elected should be relegated to the scrap heap. As shown by the excruciating 2000 election, the college can function to frustrate and contradict the will of a majority of voters.

There is an intriguing idea floating about in many state legislatures that does not disband the electors, but changes how the college functions, with the result that its conclusion would necessarily reflect the popular vote.

To call it an “idea” is a gross understatement. It comes to legislatures as a 620-page book.

If enough states comprising a majority of electoral votes would sign on to an interstate compact, they could send a message each election that the Electoral College’s result would have to agree with the majority in the popular vote.

The necessary legislation will be introduced in 47 states, including North Dakota, according to the latest tally. Project organizers devoutly hope that the governing bodies of all 50 states will vote on the legislation.

The idea has a siren song quality to it. It has drawn the enthusiastic editorial endorsement of the dour, gray dame, the New York Times, and the West Coast embrace of the Los Angeles Times, the two Times papers sharing little more than a name, considering political stances. In North Dakota, Republicans — who have been more likely than Democrats to enjoy the way that the state’s three electors have voted — are lining up in support. Lloyd Omdahl, political scientist, Democrat, erstwhile lieutenant governor, likes the idea, as he explains on this page. He also acknowledges the real nature of the appeal the popular vote interstate compact holds.

The attractiveness comes in large part from the fact that it accomplishes a desired result without having to engage in the arduous task of amending the U.S. Constitution.

People should realize that a constitutional amendment is the right way to deal with the anachronistic and flawed Electoral College. People say, that’s too hard.

Indeed. The framers didn’t intend for it to be easy. Two-thirds of Congress must approve, and three-fourths of the states must ratify.

Those enamored of elevating the popular vote to a controlling position should give themselves a reality check. Any interstate compact, no matter how many states propose to enter joyously into covenant, must be approved by Congress, where lawmakers will have to think beyond the self-interest of the states that elected them.

The popular vote movement faces another obstacle, the winner-take-all rules used by a majority of states to declare how electoral votes are cast. They’d have to be discarded for it to work as well as it should. And some folks are fond of the winner-take-all view of life.

If Congress were to allow an interstate compact to draw breath, a few presidential elections would have to take place and perform as expected before a popular vote system should be settled on as established.

But it’s difficult to foretell how — if the popular vote is the telling factor — it may affect the way presidential candidates campaign. Will the one-person, one-vote principle play out in Wyoming and North Dakota in exactly the same manner as in California?

If the National Popular Vote organization can get legislators in enough states to make the high-minded determination that their own state’s interests are not more important than the integrity of a national election based on what most voters everywhere want, then maybe the popular vote idea has a chance of success.