But California shouldn't unilaterally switch methods of determining how it apportions electoral votes. Any change must be applied equally to all states. Otherwise, it's naked politics masquerading as reform. Witness the initiative proposed by Republicans for the June ballot that promises to be an all-out, expensive partisan war.

This week, supporters are expected to begin collecting signatures for the Presidential Electoral Reform Act. It would divvy up California's electoral votes among candidates based on who won the popular vote in each congressional district. It would replace the current system, used in all but two other small states, of awarding an entire state's electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes statewide. If in effect in 2004, Democrat John Kerry would have won only 33 of the state's 55 electoral votes because President Bush beat Kerry in 22 of the state's congressional districts.

Such a system, if enacted nationwide, would more closely reflect the actual outcome of each state's popular vote. Kerry, after all, got 100 percent of California's electoral votes but won only 54 percent of the popular vote. And it would encourage candidates to campaign in states that, under a winner-take-all system, they had dismissed as a waste of time. We didn't see much of Kerry or Bush in 2003 because California was so predictable.

But the proposed initiative would not be contingent on its adoption in Red State bastions like Texas and the South. It's a transparent effort to siphon off Democratic electoral votes and improve the odds that a Republican will be elected president in 2008. The main promoter is Republican attorney Thomas Hiltachk of Sacramento, who helped orchestrate the recall election of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

Democrats have made it clear they'll spend whatever it takes to defeat the initiative. Legislative leaders and U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have formed Californians for Fair Election Reform to lead the effort.

Feinstein also has announced that this month she'll introduce a resolution to eliminate the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president. She'll face an uphill fight because amending the Constitution will require a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. Small states are likely to oppose the resolution because they get proportionately more votes in the Electoral College.

Four times in the nation's history, including 2000 with Democrat Al Gore, candidates with the most votes have lost to candidates with more electoral votes. A direct popular election certainly has the appeal of simplicity. But it also carries risks. What happened in Florida in 2000, when a few hundred disputed votes paralyzed a nation, could spread nationwide. In a very close election, candidates would dispute totals anywhere there was a machine breakdown or accusations of vote tampering.

The Electoral College system at least allows a fudge factor that cuts down on litigation. A system that apportions electors based on the votes in congressional districts may be an answer. But California must act in concert with other states - and not go it alone.