With the fate of the presidency hanging on the outcome of Florida's 25 electoral votes, professors and students are weighing in on the debate over the Electoral College.

If Texas Gov. George W. Bush takes Florida and its 25 Electoral College votes, he will win the presidency, even though current counts show him behind Vice President Al Gore '69 in the popular vote.

This has led many, including newly elected New York Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) to call for abolishing the Constitutionally created body.

But there are powerful arguments for retaining the Electoral College, even though it may elect a president against the nation's popular will, note several professors of government.

"Without the Electoral College, candidates would be inclined to spend most of their time in heavily-populated urban areas trying to pile up a huge number of votes," said Mickey Edwards, John Quincy Adams lecturer of legislative politics at the Kennedy School of Government (KSG).

"Smaller states with very important issues wouldn't get any attention," he said.

"Our system is not based on majority rule, and it never has been. It's based on protecting minority rights," Edwards added.

But these days, it seems that the Electoral College has ceased to serve its purpose.

"The Electoral College was an inventive idea at the time when small states were sensitive about losing power to big states, but that argument is absurd now," said Ronald Heifeitz, co-director of the KSG's Center for Public Leadership.

Frederick Schauer, Frank Stanton professor of the first amendment and KSG academic dean, expressed a similar opinion.

"Regardless of the situation in 1787 [at the Constitutional Convention], for most purposes people think of our nation as a contiguous unit and that popular sovereignty is ultimately most important. The goal ought to be to keep state sovereignty minimal in favor of national unity," he said.

"Also, there is the argument that states are already well-represented in the Senate," he added.

But Schauer also sees the other side of the debate and the need to keep the Electoral College.

"We design representative institutions to represent semi-sovereign entities, such as states. The electoral system is designed to be a compromise between individual votes and states' rights," he said.

Some students at the College agree with Schauer.

"The electoral system seems to have worked in the past. At times like now there seem to be problems with it, but it helps certain smaller states get represented and protects minority rights," Jonathan H. Hatch '02 said.

But others contend that the electoral system actually does not protect states' rights at all.

"Candidates already spend most of their time in more populated areas and only campaign in smaller states through media, like advertisements. I don't think the system protects states' rights anymore," Heifeitz said.

"The system localizes election problems instead of making the election a national phenomenon," he added. "A mishap in one county in Florida shouldn't throw the entire election."

In addition, Heifeitz said the system reflects badly on American democracy and the voting process.

"America is supposed to be 'a light unto the nations,'" he said. "We play that role for emerging democracies, but reducing the outcome of the election to a few counties in Florida doesn't make sense. The Electoral College teaches people who live in small states that their votes don't really matter, that it's only the states with more electoral votes that matter."

For some, the issue is clear.

"I definitely think it should be abolished. By virtue of the fact that this crisis has occurred is reason enough to question the system," Amanda L. Burnham '01 said.

In the end, however, all of this debate may not matter at all.

"All of this is probably a moot point. Abolishing the electoral college requires the approval of thirty state legislatures, and it is extremely unlikely that the smallest 13 states would vote for something that will give them less influence," Schauer said.