The Electoral College has a dropout problem.

Last week another Bill Clinton political protege lost a presidential election in the Electoral College despite winning the bulk of the popular votes, and in response disgruntled Democrats renewed calls for overhauling, or abandoning, the Electoral College.

We think that would be a mistake. The Electoral College — a true testament of America's exceptionalism — has worked as intended for two centuries, as a firewall to control the inflamed passions of direct democracy. And perhaps the problem lies not with our process but with those who don't benefit from it.

To recap, Bill Clinton's vice president, Al Gore, a Democrat, lost in 2000 to Republican George W. Bush despite amassing 540,520 more votes than Bush nationally. Last week, Democrat Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton's wife, was defeated by Republican Donald Trump despite tallying 1,439,123 more votes nationwide. Yet neither became president.

That's because 48 states and Washington, D.C., give their Electoral College votes to the winner of their individual elections.

Clinton's backers, like Gore's, assert she clearly enjoyed the nation's support yet was denied the White House only because of an anachronistic system whose time is long past. We acknowledge that reform proponents offer many good points. Yet the abolition movement contains more than a whiff of plain old sour grapes, and let's consider some points before we overturn almost 230 years of history.

Most blame Gore's loss in 2000 on the long-disputed ballot tussle in Florida that had to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. But recall that Gore failed to win his home state, Tennessee, whose 11 electoral votes could have turned a five-vote Electoral College defeat into a 17-vote win.

Last week, Clinton bested Trump by 1.4 million votes. But that's primarily because of California, arguably the least competitive state in the country. Exclude the solidly blue Golden State and Clinton trails Trump nationally by 1.25 million votes. She also failed to win several traditional Democratic strongholds, indicating the term "battleground state" is more flexible than many realize.

Moreover, Clinton and Gore really were not supported by the majority of voters. Clinton received 48 percent of the total vote; Gore, 49 percent. To truly measure the majority's will in such cases, we'd have to have hold national run-off elections, which would be terribly expensive, time-consuming and even more divisive. Converting to a direct vote also would only shift campaigns from regions or swing states to big states and urban areas. Finally, National Popular Vote's process refutes its own argument for a broad-based approach. The group needs just Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas and one other state to succeed. That means just 16 states could dictate how we elect the president.

The Clinton-Gore phenomenon has occurred only five times in our history. Perhaps the solution is better or different candidates rather than a new process. The Electoral College has withstood the test of time. Let's keep it.

REPRINTED FROM THE PANAMA CITY NEWS HERALD