We have had very close elections often, especially when there was a third or fourth person running - Lincoln was barely elected, with less than a majority of votes, as was Bill Clinton. President Kennedy led Richard Nixon by about 125,000 votes nationally, and had he not carried Illinois and a few other close state votes, he would have lost.

So it is natural to ask why not create a system where the winner of a majority of votes nationally is elected president. Simple. If we had not had the Electoral College, we would have found it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, as in 1876, to recount the votes.

In the current system, there can be recounts in states in which the election is close - but they are held only in those states where the outcome might be changed by a recount. But were there no Electoral College, every vote in every state could be sought to be recounted because even in those states which went overwhelmingly for the national election loser, their votes would count as much as those in other states that voted for the winner nationally. Can you imagine the chaos and crisis of a national recount?

Let us not be naive. There is machine politics, and there are political bosses in some states that have been known to affect the election. But the most they can "steal" is their own state. Think in a national election how many votes could be "found" in, say, Texas or California or Ohio or Florida. All votes found across the country would count the same. The recounts would be impossible.

It is true that the Electoral College is gamed by the staffs and supporters of presidential candidates. Appearances more often are made in "swing" states like Ohio or Florida than in "safe" states like Texas or Oregon. But without the Electoral College, small states would rarely be campaigned in by presidential candidates. They would go where the most voters are.

Turnouts would be different if the Electoral College were eliminated. Many voters stay home in safe states. Maybe this is bad. But any systemic change would have both negative and positive effects.

It is assumed that, but for the Electoral College, Al Gore would have been elected president in 2000. We cannot say this with certainty, because the voting universe would have been different had there been no Electoral College. How many Texans who stayed home would have voted if they thought their vote would have had a realistic effect on the outcome?

When all this is put on the table, my guess is that the enthusiasm for the abolishing the Electoral College would vanish.