As the nation awaits final word on which presidential candidate won the state of Florida--and thus the presidency--debate over the merits of the Electoral College has raged. Should Republican George W. Bush win a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes, it is still likely Democrat Al Gore will win a plurality of the popular vote. Such a result, critics of the Electoral College say, would mean a Bush presidency, even though Gore was favored by a greater number of American voters.

Only three times has a presidential candidate lost the popular vote but won the election: Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 and John Quincy Adams in 1824.

However, political scientist Nolan McCarty contends the Electoral College, devised by the founding fathers, has significant benefits. For one, it produces campaigns in which the candidates must appeal to diverse segments of the population.

"Under a national popular vote system, large majorities in concentrated areas can drive the elections," McCarty said. "It's not unreasonable to assume if the 2000 election were held under a popular vote system, Gore would have concentrated on expanding his majorities in New York and California. Similarly, Bush would have focused on increasing his totals in Texas and other southern states.

"But under the Electoral College system, any candidate who focuses only on maximizing the vote in his most supportive regions is almost certain to lose on the basis of failing to achieve an Electoral College majority. The Electoral College thus forces candidates to expand their bases and bring their campaigns to less partisan swing areas."

McCarty acknowledges that the Electoral College has anti-democratic roots. The nation's forefathers thought the typical voter was unqualified to make informed choices about the presidency. However, he adds that this approach was also the by-product of conditions in 1787, when the Electoral College was adopted.

"Since most people in 1787 viewed themselves primarily as citizens of the states in which they lived, there were very few national leaders known to the average voter," McCarty explained. "The founders thus feared that a direct popular vote would breed parochialism and regionalism in the selection of president. So they created a system in which local political leaders elected the president through the Electoral College."

While critics of the Electoral College consider it a relic of the 18th century, McCarty argues that the realities of modern campaigning make this system even more necessary.

"Given the importance of television advertising in modern campaigns, a national popular election would be fought on the airwaves of the urban television stations with the largest viewerships," McCarty said. "Under this scenario, national elections would cease to provide national unity by favoring candidates acceptable to a large number of states and regions. Instead, a national popular vote for president would further contribute to the regional, economic, and cultural polarization that besets our country."

The delegates who comprise the Electoral College meet on December 18 in their state capitols to choose the next president and vice president of the United States.