Sign up for Weekday J and get the latest on what's happening in the Jewish Bay Area.

But would the Jewish community — which is considered to have an impact on American politics that goes well beyond its small population — lose some of its influence if the presidential election format were changed?

Jewish political activists and legal experts generally say that it would, and that the Electoral College gives minorities more power than they would have in a direct popular election.

Getting rid of the Electoral College would be "harmful to Jews," said Phil Baum, executive director of the American Jewish Congress. Baum's organization has testified in front of Congress three times in favor of the Electoral College — 1969, 1979 and 1992.

One reason Baum cites is that the college holds down the number of third-party candidates who may have extreme or "fringe" platforms. Any candidate who does not have a message broad enough to appeal to large sections of the country has little chance of success in the Electoral College, but in a direct popular election, small parties could wield a great deal of influence. "With the two-party system, there is a smoothing out of extreme views," Baum said.

But the primary reason Baum cites is demographics — as does Hyman Bookbinder, Washington representative emeritus of the American Jewish Committee. "With 3 percent of the vote, there is no need for candidates to pay attention to Jewish votes [in a direct popular election]," Bookbinder said. "But Jews have a concentration in certain states," many of them large, and can influence the outcome in those areas.

While Bookbinder said he is "very sympathetic" to the "pro-democratic" argument that the majority should prevail, he said that "in terms of narrower Jewish interests, I am substantially in favor of the Electoral College."

Democratic political consultant and pollster Mark Mellman agreed. "There is no question" the format of the Electoral College "was designed to enhance the power of minorities," he said, whether small states or small ethnic groups.

Professor Marshall Breger of Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law said in populous states like New York or New Jersey, where Jews make up more than 10 percent of the electorate, the Jewish vote can "leverage the vote of the entire state."

But in a pure popular vote election, where Jews would be 3 to 4 percent of the overall electorate, the Jewish vote would be "swamped" by the rest of the country and have less importance, Breger said.

The Electoral College "is an enormous benefit to minorities like Jews," agreed Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He noted that states such as Pennsylvania, Florida and New Jersey were "close enough that a small but highly active group of people" — like Jews — could have a significant effect on the election.

Georgetown University Law Center Professor Mark Tushnet also believes the Electoral College helps both small states and small ethnic groups, although he thinks the contradictory effects may cancel each other out.

"It benefits small [population] states, which have relatively few minorities, but also benefits states closely divided in partisan terms," Tushnet said. "Those states tend to be larger states with a significant concentration of minorities."

One obvious example, he said, is Florida, which has significant populations of Jews, African-Americans and Cuban-Americans. All those groups can make a difference in a close vote.

On the other hand, New York has a large population of minorities, but the partisan division is so strongly tilted toward Democrats overall that minorities do not have as large an impact.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, agreed somewhat that "politically active minorities" do benefit from the Electoral College, but the gain is "slightly offset" by the power of small states containing fewer members of minority groups.

Saperstein's organization, however, had no official position on the issue and has been evaluating where it should stand. While the Electoral College may benefit minorities, he said, a direct popular vote for president might make citizens "feel more confident in government" and create a "stronger American democracy," which would certainly benefit Jews and other minorities.

Just about everyone agreed that there is virtually no chance of passing a constitutional amendment outlawing the Electoral College. Two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states would have to approve, and there are too many small-population states that would not agree to such a change.

Others have talked about a change in the way Electoral College votes are allotted in each state. Instead of a winner-take-all system, Electoral College votes would be distributed based on the winner of each congressional district, with two additional votes going to the overall winner of the state.

Breger believes such a reform would reduce Jewish influence, because Jews would have less of an impact on an entire state. Instead, their influence would be more limited to certain districts, since Jews often congregate in particular neighborhoods.

Mellman and Tushnet said they do not know what effect such a change would have on the presidential election. "I don't think anyone has done an analysis of that change" statistically, Tushnet said.

He speculated that overall it probably would not significantly change the Electoral College vote totals — losses of electoral votes in one state would probably be balanced out by gains in another. Anyway, noted Tushnet, "if you change the election rules, candidates change campaign strategies," so any guess based on past elections may not be valid.