Alexander Hamilton begins Federalist Paper number 68 by declaring that the agreed-upon mode of selecting the nation’s executive was uniquely uncontroversial and had received only the “slightest mark of approbation from its opponents.” Hamilton goes on to laud the compromise for its fundamental purpose: thwarting the efforts of tyrannical, popularity-driven politicians and instead entrusting knowledgeable, trustworthy electors to make the decision for the country. Today, the same system is being excoriated for its failure to fulfill this purpose.

The debate surrounding the electoral college in the wake of Trump’s victory can be characterized as a simple difference of interests. Liberals have argued that the system is clearly incapable of precluding despots from riding waves of popular support to the White House, as Hamilton imagined it would. In a Nov. 17 Time Magazine article, Michael Signer, a Democrat and the mayor of Charlottesville, Va., argued that the election of a demagogue renders the electoral college irrelevant.

Conservatives have argued that the electoral college embodies other important values that helped form the foundation of the country, namely a system of federalism and the preservation of state rights. Libertarian author Tom Mullen, in a Nov. 18 Huffington Post article, summarized these concerns thusly: “The United States is a diverse federation of drastically different cultures. Those who believe New York City, Atlanta, GA, Boise, ID and Los Angeles, CA aren’t different cultures just aren’t being honest with themselves.”

Interestingly, both views have been framed as a defense of the powerless. One side wishes to defend the myriad ethnic and religious groups who have been insulted by the president-elect and who fear that he may follow through on some of his more dangerous campaign promises, such as deporting undocumented Mexican immigrants and placing a ban on Muslim immigration to the United States. The other side fears for the relative influence of smaller states whose cultures and values they say are different from the bigger cosmopolitan cities that would gain significant influence if the election were decided by a popular vote.

The electoral college was designed to expand the clout of less-populated states by providing two electoral votes to each state irrespective of the size of its populace. Since most states automatically award all of their electors to the winner of the state-level popular vote, the system allows for a mismatch between who wins the popular vote and who wins the electoral college. Maine and Nebraska award electors to winners of individual districts in addition to the winner of the statewide vote, however, Maine never split its vote before this year, according to a Nov. 9 Boston.com article.

Many who are frustrated with the election of Trump and the system which allowed him to win have called for the removal of the electoral college in favor of a system based on the popular vote. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) filed legislation on Nov. 15 to amend the Constitution and abandon the electoral college, according to a Nov. 15 Los Angeles Times article. The bill is a longshot given the arduous, nearly impossible process required for amending the Constitution, along with the fact that Republicans control Congress and the White House. However, it is still important to critically evaluate the issue and discuss possible alternatives to the system.

A closer examination of the problem suggests that adopting a pure popular vote-based system could present its own issues. As Paul Schumaker notes in his book “Choosing a President: The Electoral College and Beyond,” a popular vote could lead to a proliferation of third-party candidates who are no longer dissuaded by the seemingly unconquerable hurdle of winning elections in each individual state. If there are many popular candidates in an election, the eventual president-elect could win with a relatively small proportion of the vote. Most Western countries, such as Great Britain, have parliamentary systems where citizens vote for parties, not individual candidates, who must form coalitions if one party does not win enough votes to control the legislature and the executive. Thus, the electoral college may not solve the issue of an unpopular candidate ascending to the presidency. However, such a system still has qualities that would render it a better choice than the electoral college, and there are reasonable adjustments that could be made to prevent the aforementioned issues.

One potential fix would be to have a runoff between the two top vote-getters if no candidate wins over half of the vote in the initial stage. This could result in extending an already time-consuming process; however, these concerns could be ameliorated if states solve already-existing issues with long lines by increasing the number of polling stations on election day. The added stage ensures that “majority rules” and would help solve the problem that an increase in candidates would cause by creating another disincentivizing impediment for lesser-known third-party candidates.

In this year’s election, such a system would have avoided a convoluted field of candidates while ensuring that the candidate with the most votes would win. It is also worth noting that gubernatorial races have historically not seen the type of proliferation of candidates that critics of the popular vote system fear.

The system that Hamilton gushed over in 1788 has lost some of its most redeeming features. Electors are now thought of as inhabiting purely symbolic roles, as 48 states automatically pledge all of their electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote and 29 states have laws prohibiting electors from voting differently than they are supposed to, according to a Nov. 17 article in Time Magazine. A Change.org petition with more than 4.5 million signatures is currently calling for electors in the other 21 states to reject Trump, but it would be such a major diversion for the now-subservient electors to heed this call that the attempt is unrealistic.

In addition, the fear that tyranny could be born out of a movement driven by the majority has been flipped on its head. The candidate with no governing experience, an irascible temper and a proclivity to demean and threaten anyone who stands in his way was chosen by a minority of voters. Perhaps no other president in our country’s history more befits Hamilton’s characterization of the type of leader the electoral college was supposed to impede.

The concerns of states-rights advocates are less concrete and simply not as essential to our country’s survival as the protection of those who are at risk due to their identities. Thus, the country must adjust to recalibrate our mode of electing the president to be consistent with the goals it was originally assigned to pursue.