Matt Yglesias points out that the Colorado iniative to divide electoral votes based proportionally on the popular vote in that state may be unconstitutional, since Article II of the Constitution says that states can only decide how to choose electors.

I didn't know that.

I wondered how Maine and Nebraska worked, since they have alternatives to the traditional winner-take-all system. They way they work is that the winner of the popular vote gets 2 electoral votes. The remaining votes for the state are divided among districts. The winner of the popular vote in each district gets that electoral vote. So this is consistent with the Constitution.

Colorado's is not, and Yglesias points out that this could lead to an ugly legal battle if the vote is close. He suggests a legal "pre-review", so the Supreme Court can say whether or not the outcome of a legal challenge would be contentious or easily decided. I don't know if that's a good idea or not.

But suddenly I'm not so jazzed about the Colorado iniative. I didn't know it came with the baggage of legal ambiguity.

I still strongly believe in Electoral College reform, but it seems that the Maine/Nebraska is probably the way to go.