I can’t remember exactly when I learned that our government wasn’t the perfect democracy that youthful minds are encouraged to envision. The Founding Fathers of our country didn’t want “one man, one vote,” which obviously (to them at least) would have led to disastrous, uneducated mob rule, so they structured a multi-tiered government. The House of Representatives was chosen through direct elections by white, propertied, male citizens; the Senate was elected by state legislatures, and the Electoral College, a body of wise and disinterested men, would choose the President.

Gradually the whole system was democratized: the vote was first given to poor citizens, then to African-American males and ultimately to women, although it took longer for voting rights to be guaranteed. Eventually the Constitution was amended so that the Senate would be chosen by direct election, rather than by state legislatures. After this arduous democratic revolution, only one institution remained unreformed – the Electoral College.

The Electoral College essentially reduces the presidential race to a conflict over states: whoever wins a state wins all of its electoral votes (usually), and these votes are apportioned on the basis of congressional representation. Each state has an electoral vote for each senator and congressman, meaning that smaller states have more electoral representation for their population. This creates situations in which the president loses the popular vote but wins in the Electoral College, most notably four years ago, but also in 1876 and 1888.

Moreover, because of the winner-take-all nature of Electoral College, minority party voters are effectively disenfranchised. Republicans in Massachusetts might as well have voted for the Democrat, since the majority of the state’s voters will vote that way, and the electors would likely follow.

Also, the electors – the individuals who actually cast the electoral votes – are often free to ignore the popular results, although 24 states have penalties if they do so (including Massachusetts). There have been 156 of these “faithless electors” over the course of American history, the most recent of which came in 2000, when Elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of the District of Columbia abstained from voting to protest her district’s lack of congressional representation.

Finally, if neither candidate wins 270 Electoral votes, the requirement for victory, then the House of Representatives decides the president, with each state getting one vote.

There have been attempts at eliminating the Electoral College, but none have succeeded. Any lasting change in the system would require a constitutional amendment, which usually requires widespread dissatisfaction and strong movements to effect changes. But the removal of this system is unquestionably in America’s best interests.

Without the Electoral College, every citizen’s vote would be equally worthwhile, and equally desirable. Under our current system, over 30 states are solidly in the camp of one of the major parties – accordingly the major candidates avoid these states, except for the purposes of fundraising.

Moreover, only a few of the “swing” states could go either way. As a result, here in Massachusetts there are no ads on local television networks for either candidate, while Ohioans are bombarded incessantly with political messages. Is Ohio (or Florida or Iowa or New Hampshire) inherently better than Massachusetts (or Texas or California)? Do its undecided voters deserve greater scrutiny than those in decided states?

It is only because of the Electoral College that states are prioritized this way. Voting is most valuable, and most rewarding, when it is clear that the outcome of one’s vote matters, but our current system privileges the voters of a small handful of states, and effectively disenfranchises the rest.

Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct presidential election could have some negative consequences, including a major increase in campaign spending, as candidates seek to reach all voters, and a rise in “dirty tricks” nationwide rather than simply in Florida or other swing states.

However, it would be the correct thing to do, as each vote would be equally valuable and there would be no possibility of the second most popular candidate being elected, let alone the election being thrown to the House of Representatives.

Sadly, for all the complaints about the Electoral College, there has been little movement to replace it. After all the progress our country has made in casting off its eighteenth century shackles, it would be a shame to halt at the highest office in the land.

Andrew Freeman is a Collegian columnist.