01:00 AM EST on Monday, November 22, 2004

Four years after the 2000 election, there is still apparently a sizable contingent of partisans harboring resentment over the outcome. One of the touchstones of this group is the demand that the Electoral College be abolished, in favor of direct elections. If these people were awake during their high-school civics classes, they should recall that the Electoral College serves to increase the clout of those voters who do not live in areas of large population.

Under the present system, a candidate for national office is compelled to seek the support of citizens in less densely populated areas, whose votes might otherwise be marginalized. If the Electoral College were discarded, a candidate would be able to direct his appeal to a few select population centers, to the detriment of the rest of us.

It is unfortunate that Senator Chafee has added his voice to the chorus of malcontents ("Chafee votes for Bush's father," news, Nov. 3), while parroting the common claim that his vote doesn't count. As an independent voter in heavily Democratic Rhode Island, I too sometimes feel frustrated regarding the consequences of my own vote, but, on balance, the current system acknowledges the voices of a greater percentage of voters nationwide than would a direct election.

Discarding the Electoral College over the results of one acrimonious election would be indeed shortsighted.

STEVEN ARTIGAS

Westerly