Another close election. Another round of efforts to alter or dump the Electoral College. If only it were that easy.

Back in September, U.S. Rep. Brian Baird of Vancouver, Wash., introduced a resolution to replace the Electoral College with the direct election of presidents. Baird said he was troubled by complaints, especially from young constituents, that the current system was a deterrent to voting. Do we really want to alter voting to satisfy those who can’t be bothered with the other contests on the ballot? Besides, whatever the merits of direct presidential elections, they aren’t going to happen. Congressional representatives from smaller states would kill such an idea. And even if two-thirds of both chambers passed a constitutional amendment necessary for such a change, voters in 38 states would have to approve. Again, small states are not going to vote against their interests.

But that’s not the only idea out there. Other reformers are floating changes that would preserve the Electoral College, while trying to mitigate its winner-take-all approach. Rep. Wendy Jacquet, the House minority leader in the Idaho Legislature, plans to propose a bill that would award electoral votes proportionally. Such a system would have given President Bush three of Idaho’s four electoral votes for winning 68 percent of the total vote in the state.

In Republican-dominated Idaho, that plan will get less support than Kerry did. But there are nonpartisan reasons to oppose such a scheme. Colorado voters rejected a similar plan; the compelling argument was that a change would further marginalize the state, because the ultimate prize would shrink.

Even if all states changed at once, problems would arise. Studies of past elections show that it would be difficult for candidates to win 270 electoral votes (the amount needed to win) in close races, especially if strong third-party candidates were involved. If all candidates fall short, elections are thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives. Four out of the past 10 elections would have wound up in the House (1960, 1968, 1992 and 1996). If we’re a divided nation now, just imagine Congress deciding who gets to be president.

Another reform idea is to apportion electoral votes by congressional districts. For instance, Bush would have won the electoral vote of the 5th District in Washington state. But that system would only heighten the incentives to redraw boundaries for partisan gain. Such a system would not have changed the outcome of the past two elections, but it would have forced a tie in 1976 and it would have flipped the result in 1960, which brings us to the final point.

While Democrats might think the Electoral College represents a structural disadvantage, it wasn’t always that way. Democrats used to rule the South and small states elsewhere. The current political alignment isn’t permanent either.

The worst reason for change is to achieve partisan outcomes. If change is to come, it should be for better reasons. In the meantime, beware of simple solutions.