No matter who is finally determined to have won the presidential election, the Electoral College will take another beating. As long as I can remember – quite a while now – we have been treated to quadrennial cartoons showing periwigged electors going off to perform their antique and ceremonial function of electing someone we already know is president in all but name.

The only time the Electoral College is not seen as quaint is when it is perceived to be a threat to democracy – such as this year. Three times in the 19th century someone was elected president without receiving the most popular votes – in 1876 Rutherford Hayes became a “minority president,” as did Benjamin Harrison in 1888. In 1824, no one received a majority in the Electoral College and the House of Representatives decided, with each state casting one vote. John Quincy Adams was the dubious winner. None of the three presidents gained the nation’s confidence; none were re-elected.

What’s more, voting in has been thoroughly democratized since the Electoral College was devised, and even since the last “minority president” was elected. The changes since 1888 have been sweeping. Women, blacks and other minorities have the right to vote.

We now elect U.S. senators directly (originally, state legislatures did). The Supreme Court’s one-person, one-vote decisions have reshaped electoral districts, with nearly all legislative bodies (except the U.S. Senate) representing nearly equal numbers of citizens. The case for abandoning the Electoral College seems overwhelming, substituting a direct popular vote. Whoever receives the most votes should win. It seems simple, consistent and fair.

Yet it’s not really that simple, for the same reason the Constitution, written two centuries ago, still suffices to govern a country almost unimaginably different from the one the framers knew. For the Constitution honors another important principle, known as federalism – the concept that the United States is not entirely unitary, but made up of constituent states which – though not “sovereign,” as orators liked to intone – have substantial independence. Unlike almost any other modern democracy, we consider education and law enforcement – and voting – to be state, not national responsibilities. National governments in Britain and France have powers over local affairs we would denounce as dictatorial.

The Electoral College itself – obscure party officials meeting in Washington on Dec. 18 – is not important, but the principle behind it is. In the 20th century, federalism was tainted by its association with “states’ rights” campaigns in support of racial segregation, but in a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, a level of strong regional government has much to recommend it. Think of it as another “check and balance” in the Constitution’s amazingly durable scheme.

Even if you’re inclined to dump the Electoral College anyway, there are practical difficulties. If the popular vote decides, how popular must it be? If abandoning the Electoral College spawned new parties – and it would – it’s likely a winning candidate could receive less than 40 percent of the vote, as Angus King did in 1994 while being elected governor. To most people, that’s far short of a mandate, and in countries that use direct elections, most have a means for turning a minority into a majority. The most common is a runoff between the top two candidates, but runoffs attract far fewer voters – and we already have a problem with non-voters (49 percent in our last outing.) There are ways to avoid runoffs, such as the ballot used in Ireland’s presidential election, where voters list not just a first choice, but second, third and fourth – with the latter preferences mixed in should no one receive a majority. But it’s doubtful voters would accept such a complex system for an office that, unlike Ireland’s presidency, is far from ceremonial.

Despite their other attractions, direct elections do not really solve the “mandate problem” of a close election, as we saw Nov. 7. It’s easy to imagine the same agitation for recounts and re-votes in every state, not just in Florida – an even more daunting prospect for political legitimacy.

Finally, there’s one more reason not to hastily abandon the Electoral College. Its many detractors cite the elections of 1824, 1876 and 1888. They never mention 1860.

That was the year Abraham Lincoln emerged among four strong candidates to capture a clear majority of the Electoral College. He received far less than a majority of the popular vote – about 40 percent. Had the first president not pledged to the full protection of slavery been chosen by plurality, his government might not have functioned, and the United States might simply have broken apart. As it was, southern states bent on blocking Lincoln’s inauguration had to take the extra-constitutional step of secession, and Lincoln was able to rally the nation in a war to preserve the union.

The blunt historical fact is that, had the Electoral College not been functioning in 1860, we might not have a nation at all. For the cause of advancing freedom and democracy, the election of 1860 certainly outweighs the other three. Now, 140 years later, it’s curious to see a similar sectional division. Nearly every state Al Gore carried lies north of the Mason-Dixon Line, between slave and free states. Of states that voted for George W. Bush, only the upper plains states (and New Hampshire) lie north of the line.

While our differences today are hardly comparable to those of 1860, they do suggest that this is a diverse, heterogeneous nation – and that the Electoral College serves a continuing role in converting minorities into majorities. For both historical and contemporary reasons, we should think long and hard before abolishing it.

Douglas Rooks, a free-lance journalist, was the editor of Maine Times and has worked 24 years at daily and weekly newspapers in Maine and New Hampshire.