SPRINGFIELD – A panel debated the merits of maintaining or jettison the Electoral College, which played a pivotal role in the 2016 presidential election. The forum was held at the Brightwood Branch Library on Feb. 7.

The panel included Prof. Jesse Rhodes, state Sen. Eric Lesser, Prof. Amel Ahmed and Adam Hilton, a political science instructor. The Springfield League of Women Voters sponsored the program. Linda Matys O’Connell moderated the discussion.

Jesse Rhodes, who provided context on how the Electoral College works, said the body holds an indirect influence on who becomes president. In a sense, voters in each state cast ballots for electors who fill party slates.

In all but two states, the Electoral College “works on a winner-takes-all basis,” said Rhodes.” He added the Electoral College “magnifies” the selection process.

A candidate needs 270 of 535 Electoral College votes to win the presidency.

If no candidates obtain a majority, the House of Representatives elects the president. He said the Founding Founders were fearful of solely a popular vote electing the president. In response, they devised the Electoral College.

Rhodes said the Electoral College roots are tied to slavery when a slave was considered three-fifths a person. Slaves were factored into the final population counts, which provided the Southern states with an unfair advantage over non-slave states.

Though Donald J. Trump lost the popular vote by over 2.9 million votes, he captured enough key states to swing the Electoral College his way.

State Sen. Eric Lesser D-Longmeadow said the issue can get “politicized fast.” He said nothing will get changed soon, as any change requires the approval of a Constitutional amendment. Lesser filed a petition with the state legislature asking Congress to approve an amendment.

Such amendments can be initiated by Congressional approval or by three-fifth of states calling for the change, which has never happened.

A number of states have signed onto an interstate compact. The compact “binds the electors” to whoever wins the popular vote. Lesser supports the compact. The compact is entirely voluntarily, leaving room for states to withdraw. He supports a Constitutional amendment.

The Electoral College resembles little from the Constitutional Convention. The college and the process have evolved over time. “It's worth taking a look at everyone once in a while,” he said, and whether the process is still effective.

Ahmed, who teaches Political Science at UMass-Amherst, said the Electoral College affords institutional safeguards and benefits. She defended the college on three points: selfish, principled and pragmatic.

“The body provides protection to minorities they would not have otherwise,” she said. Latino voters are a key demographic group in several swing states, which gives them a “seat at the table.” If the nation adopted only a popular vote system, Ahmed said geography or populations would no longer matter in elections.

Ahmed, who studies democracies globally, said many countries lack an alternative to the popular vote.

She closed by saying a Constitutional amendment would be extraordinarily hard to get approved. She added voter ID laws and redistricting are greater threats to the electorate.

The “flip side,” said Ahmed, a candidate good conceivably win the presidential election by only catering to white voters. She worried about the institutional changes in how candidates run for president, and whether race would play an even bigger role in elections.

Hilton said reforming the Electoral College is a “false solution to the present problem.” Instead, American political institutions face a “legitimacy crisis” because of the their “inability to respond” to the needs and concerns of the average American.

He added the current political climate is not in an “existential crisis,” whereby forces have the power to dismantle our constitutional form of government. “American political institutions have reached record lows in public approval ratings.”

He called for reforming the Electoral College, particularly the winner-takes-all mechanism, which awards the entire slate of electors to the winner of the state's popular vote. Again, 48 states have such a process in place.

Lesser said no one is “claiming there’s one solution” to reforming the political institutions, but a broader conservation on how to “reinvigorate” the system where half of registered did not cast a vote in the November national election.