Every four years, there’s a surge in demands to abolish the Electoral College. The New York Times recently reversed itself and came out for abolition. Its editorial argued that the election of a president by 538 electors rather than by the voters themselves is “a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning, and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis.”

That happened four years ago, when the popular vote was close, inefficiency and fraud delayed the count in Florida, and a 5-to-4 vote in the U.S. Supreme Court made George W. Bush president although Al Gore won the total vote by 500,000. A popular-vote loser also won the presidency in 1876 and 1888. Surely this constitutional anachronism ought to be abolished in favor of a simple national vote in which the winner becomes president. Right? Think again.

Consider first what it would mean for Maine if the nation elected a president by popular vote. Instead of being regarded as a small but important swing state, Maine would find its vote just a drop in the bucket. Candidates and nominees of both parties would head for New York and California and other states with the biggest populations and ignore Maine and other smaller states. Even in the big states, they would skip the rural areas and concentrate on precincts with the most voters.

For the nation as a whole, a switch to direct popular vote, especially if a runoff provision was added, would probably lead to a proliferation of minor parties. They could see a possibility of placing second and maybe winning in the runoff.

Beyond that, consider a far more serious objection. Under the present system, a close vote like the one in 2000 and probably this one means that the decisive ballot counts occur only in a few swing states. Even in those states, the key votes will be in only a few precincts. Those states and precincts offer temptation for fraud and manipulation because they determine the winner. A change to direct popular election, in a close vote, could spread uncertainty and fraud and manipulation to every state and precinct in the country, because every vote in the country could be decisive.

Contested ballot counts, delays and court challenges could spread throughout the country. A close future presidential election could be Florida in 2000 multiplied by 50. That could be a super constitutional crisis that would certainly have occurred in 2000 and could well occur in 2004 if we had made the mistake of changing to direct vote.

But it’s not going to happen soon. A constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. Small and middle-sized states fearful of losing their present clout would oppose it. So the Electoral College looks safe for a long time to come.

A small reform, however, could help bring the electoral vote (each state gets one for each of its two senators and one for each of its representatives) closer into line with the popular vote. In most states, the electoral vote is winner take all. Only Maine and Nebraska provide that the electors vote by congressional district. In Maine, District 2 could go for Mr. Bush, while District 1 could go for John Kerry. That would mean three electoral votes for the statewide winner and one for the other nominee, since the Senate-related electoral votes would go with the statewide majority. Other states would do well to consider this model.