Washington -- Though millions of American citizens will cast ballots this November for the presidential candidate of their choice, it will in fact be just 538 individuals voting more than a month later in the Electoral College who will decide which candidate will become president of the United States.

The Electoral College got more attention in 1992 because there were three major candidates in the presidential race -- George Bush, Bill Clinton, and businessman Ross Perot. Although it did not happen, some had felt at the time that the possibility existed, albeit slight, that for the first time in this century a front runner, and winner of the popular vote, could be denied an Electoral College majority (though Perot had a strong finish in the popular vote for an independent candidate, he did not carry any states and, therefore, did not receive any electoral votes).

Had Bill Clinton been denied a majority of electoral votes, it would have "thrown" the election into the House of Representatives for a decision, an action taken just three times in history and not since 1876.

This issue would arise again in 1996 if a major figure, with a sizable personal fortune, or enough popularity to raise a good deal of funds, decided to run as an independent or third-party candidate.

The Electoral College is one of the constitutional guards the nation's founding father thought necessary against the exercise of too much power, in this case against the direct, immediate exercise of the popular will. The U.S. Constitution gives each state as many votes in the college as it has seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Those numbers are adjusted each decade as a new census redistributes House seats to reflect population changes. Currently there are 538 members of the college (including three for the District of Columbia), and a majority of 270 is necessary to name a president.

Originally, each state was free to chose its electors as it pleased. Today, the political parties put together a list of electors in each state pledged to their presidential candidate and equal to the number of the state's electoral votes. When the state's citizens vote for a candidate, they are actually voting for the entire list of electors who have affirmed support for that candidate and his vice presidential running mate.

The list receiving the highest popular vote within each individual state is elected. Its members then meet in their state's capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to affirm their choice. There is no legal requirement that they vote for their party's nominee, but the instances when they have not have been rare.

Certified lists of the electorate votes are sent to the president of the U.S. Senate, who opens them in a joint session of Congress on January 6 of the following year. If no candidate for president has a majority, the House of Representatives chooses from among the three highest candidates, with all representatives from each state combining to cast one vote for that state. If no candidate for vice president has a majority, the Senate chooses from the top two, with the senators voting as individuals.

In the Electoral College system, the candidate who wins a plurality of votes within a state receives all of that state's electoral votes, regardless of the size of the margin. (Maine is a singular exception; under some circumstances there, losing candidates may get part of the vote.) And that "winner take all" rule can produce a distortion of the total vote nationwide.

It can offset large victories in some states with minuscule ones in others. It can distort the results in favor of more populous states, where large blocs of electoral votes may hinge on a very few popular votes in a close election. It denies electoral votes to candidates who win less than a plurality, no matter how large a proportion of the state's votes they win. It is quite possible that a candidate who wins a majority, or even a plurality, of votes in states totaling 270 electoral votes could succeed against a candidate who wins a majority of all popular votes nationally.

Over the years the Electoral College has been the subject of a continuing debate. Proponents of the system claim it provides for geographic balance, gives the states direct representation in the national vote, isolates any potential voting dispute within a specific state's boundaries, and is a system that has worked over a long period of time.

Those who oppose the system argue that it makes popular votes unequal, and so it is undemocratic in conception and practice; that it offers the potential for the winner of the nationwide popular vote to lose the election; that the electors could undermine a popular mandate by exercising their own judgment; and that, basically, it is unnecessary.

Between the proponents and opponents there are others who would keep the system but change it. Some proposals over the years to alter the system have been to change the winner-take-all result within a state to a proportional vote, and for a candidate getting one vote for each of a state's electoral districts won plus two votes for winning the state's overall vote.

However, no plan has received enough support to actually make any changes in the Electoral College. It remains the uniquely American process it always has been.