Why haven't/don't states do smaller interstate Electoral College compacts?

[Nichlemn]

For instance, suppose California and Texas had agreed that both states would pledge their electoral votes to the plurality winner of their collective popular vote. This would in effect create a 89 electoral vote state that voted 50.7/48.3 for Bush in 2004 and 54.5/43.6 for Obama in 2008. Instead of both major party candidates virtually ignoring the the two states, the "superstate" would gain vast attention as it would be all but a must-win for both candidates.

There have many opportunities to do something like this throughout history, yet I don't believe it's ever been tried. Why not? Would it be unconstitutional? I wouldn't think so as the national compact doesn't appear to be. Is it the fear that one party might benefit more than another? I don't think so, since you could always add another state or two to balance things out (and have the compact only last for one or two elections). I think the main reason is that voters wouldn't like their states' electoral votes going to the loser of the states' popular vote (as Schwarzenegger used for his justification of vetoing the national compact) and most of all, if the compact ended up costing their states' plurality winner an election. Of course, it should also win them elections they would have lost, but voters would likely react more at the voting booth to losses than gains.

It might also be a fun exercise to create some fictitious compacts and see how they would change past elections.

[Nichlemn]

Or, alternatively, suppose that you had a swing superstate of ~100 electoral votes that was committed to always voting for the national popular vote winner.  This would be such a large block of electoral votes, that it would then become practically impossible for anyone to win the electoral college without winning the national popular vote.  It would be like you've de facto enacted NPV, even though only a few states have signed on.

Heh, I think I actually edited the Wikipedia article on the NPVC to suggest this some years ago. It was removed on grounds of being too speculatory. Still, I think commiting to voting for the winner of only the signers of the compact might make it more enticing for states to join. 

[Nichlemn]

I think that's a neat idea. But in answer to your question, is it possiblly as simple that maybe not many people have thought of this?

Given that Mr. Morden and I both thought of it and large numbers of state legislators around the country have been exposed to the NPVIC, I found it unlikely. I'm sure there are a few state legislators out there who have thought of this but probably think that it's unfeasible.

[Nichlemn]

A similar question: why haven't states like Michigan established the Maine/Nebraska congressional district rule when they had Republican trifectas? (Consider that Bush won 10 out of 15 districts in Michigan despite losing statewide).

The most logical answer is that it would be seen as partisan power grab. Still, its precedent in Maine and Nebraska makes it look less so.