Leave it to Al Gore to inspire a really bad idea.

As you may recall, the petulant presidential candidate lost the 2000 election, only to narrowly win the popular vote. That quirk (it had happened three times before) was all the popular-vote movement needed to get going. Nine states with 132 electoral votes have now signed on to a controversial compact that would automatically award their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national tally, regardless of how their particular states voted.

Though spearheaded by liberal Democratic fortunes, the National Popular Vote movement has attracted well-meaning, if misguided, bipartisan support. Proponents say the NPV reform plan would lessen the importance of swing states and steer candidates to less-traveled places -- say, California, New York or North Dakota, where contests are all but settled in a winner-take-all system (Maine and Nebraska allocate their Electoral College votes based on congressional districts, a practice that, if adopted nationwide, would of course have the greatest impact on large states).

But deciding the presidential race by pure democratic rule would be a winner-take-all system on steroids -- reducing the importance of winning the election within every state in favor of trying to grab the highest percentage possible in the most populous states. Indeed, the Electoral College actually encourages candidates to campaign in more regions of the country. Campaign resources are finite, and in a popular-vote scenario, less populated states would remain fly-over country as candidates flocked to the most populated urban centers.

As it stands now, and thanks to the "undemocratic" awarding of two senators (originally chosen by state legislatures) to every state, regardless of size, our Electoral College system is weighted ever so slightly in favor of smaller states. So swing states such as Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire -- representing 16 electoral votes up for grabs -- are more likely to see President Obama and the GOP nominee duking it out.

This is as it should be. A republic does not rest on pure majority (mob?) rule. It incorporates various checks and balances to filter the majority and protect the minority. The Senate, for example, accomplishes this through unlimited debate, and unless a supermajority can break the filibuster, why, slim majorities do not prevail. National policy requires a broad consensus, hence the complaint that one small state can bottle things up misses the point entirely.

States have disparate local interests they wish to protect, yet imagine if Minnesota decides to go predictably blue in this year's presidential contest but the country has had enough of Obamanomics and votes Republican. Under the NPV plan -- should Minnesota join the compact -- our state's electoral votes would be awarded to the GOP nominee regardless of a direct popular election within our borders. This is important, because we ought to be, at least to a degree, masters of our own universe.

As always, there is little doubt that the matter will be decided in the courts. While Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution properly gives the states the power to individually determine how their electoral votes are apportioned, Article I, Section 10 is equally as clear: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress ... enter into any agreement or compact with another state ..."

Nevertheless, the NPV juggernaut is rolling on, already halfway to its goal. Once enough states sign on -- enough, that is, to deliver a 270-electoral-vote majority -- the game is up. And that means a free-for-all every four years, in which the more candidates who enter the presidential sweepstakes, the easier it would be for one to get a simple plurality and become a truly minority president with little governing power.

Which brings us back to the 2000 election. The only way that contested race could have been more divisive is if every vote in every state, not just Florida, had to be recounted. Which is what may happen under a national popular vote.

-----------------

Jason Lewis is a nationally syndicated talk-show host based in Minneapolis-St. Paul and is the author of "Power Divided is Power Checked: The Argument for States' Rights" from Bascom Hill Publishing. He can be heard from 5 to 8 p.m. weekdays on NewsTalk Radio (1130 AM) or online at jasonlewisshow.com.