The electoral college has been making headlines in the United States again. The Chattanoogan reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren would like to see it abolished. Once again, the topic has arisen as to whether or not it should be abolished. Most people supporting the idea favor going directly with the popular vote instead.

It's true that the US electoral college is complicated and problematic. It's not entirely unique, other countries do have their own versions of the system. But it doesn't necessarily always result in the best representation of the will of the people, though this can also be the case with other forms of government, including the parliamentary system.

While there are good reasons for doing away with the electoral college, there are solid reasons for keeping it.

Some of the original reasoning for it isn't as outdated as many people think

Many who are opposed to the electoral college believe the original thinking behind it is no longer valid. Ideas such as the 'tumult and disorder' of a nationalized election do seem to be relics of the past. However, there are other factors to consider.

Another key reason, as championed by James Madison, was so that less-populated states wouldn't be ignored. An opinon piece in USA Today notes that with the electoral college, almost equal attention is paid to New Hampshire as is to Florida. In a race to 270, New Hampshire's four electoral votes could be just as pivotal as Florida's 29.

But in a race for the popular vote, it would probably be a different story. With a population difference of roughly 20 million, concerns of Floridians would likely greatly outweigh those of New Hampshirites.

And that could be the story across the country, as USA Today touches on. Candidates in all likelihood would be less willing to pay attention to people in states like Iowa and West Virginia.

Instead, their focus would be exponentially more aimed at places such as California, New York, and Texas.

The issue of security was another major consideration for many. In theory, it would be far more difficult to taint elections in each individual state than one nationalized election. As Alexander Hamilton believed, it could keep corruption in one state from corrupting "the great body of the people."

A possible example of this can be found in the 1876 presidential election.

Republican Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes won via the electoral college. This was despite Democratic New York Governor Samuel J. Tilden receiving the majority of the popular vote. However, the popular vote has largely been viewed as tainted by historians. A number of southern states that went for Tilden also reported several disturbing incidents. These include fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters. It has become widely accepted that Hayes would have also won the popular vote in a fair election. The electoral college kept the corruption from affecting the election as a whole.

You can't assume electoral results would be overturned

Many electoral college detractors have claimed that elections where the winner didn't receive the popular vote were illegitimate.

While it's already established that this might not be true due to fraud, there are also other reasons.

The essential structure of presidential campaigning would be different. With more emphasis placed on different states and less on others, voters would likely be affected differently. Which candidate people voted for, or whether they even voted at all, could have changed. It's unreasonable to assume that popular vote results would have been exactly the same.