ABSTRACT
The Electoral College is good—or at least good enough to serve adequately many of the functions of presidential elections that political scientists think important for the effective operation of various aspects of our political system. Such a verdict was rendered by thirty-seven political scientists in 2001, organized by Burdett Loomis and myself, in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election. 1 Because the Electoral College has consistently conferred legitimacy on the candidate receiving a majority of electoral votes and because it has contributed to effective governance by sustaining a two-party system, two-thirds of the participants—including myself—cast approval ballots in favor of the Electoral College at the end of our project. Six major alternatives to our current system, including a direct popular election that would award the presidency to the candidate getting the most votes nationally, received significant support, but were thought to have limitations or possible unanticipated negative consequences.
