In the U.S., the idea of “one man, one vote,” carries a strong appeal. But anyone who’s ever had even a basic civics lesson understands the Electoral College has the final say in who becomes president.

Unless the Supreme Court does, but that’s another story.

According to Michael Waldman, former speech writer for President Bill Clinton and executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the Electoral College was developed to settle a dispute at the original Constitutional Convention. One delegate wanted Congress to choose the president; another wanted a popular election.

The delegates referred the quandary to the Committee of Detail, who provided the idea of the Electoral College, allowing small states extra push when determining the president.

The Electoral College is composed of 538 electors. Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its senators and representatives in the U.S. Congress. Each elector casts two votes: one for president and one for vice president. To be elected, a candidate must have a 270-vote majority of the Electoral College. If this does not occur in the case of the presidency, the choice is given to the House of Representatives. The Senate would decide on the vice president should a majority not emerge.

Waldman, author of the book, “A Return To Common Sense: 7 Bold Ways to Revitalize Our Democracy,” believes the Electoral College should be eliminated and replaced with a National Popular Vote, saying the Electoral College “warps competition and subverts political equality even when it does work.”

“Because most states are reliably ‘red’ or ‘blue,’ candidates focus nearly all their efforts on a few ‘swing’ states,” writes Waldman. “As a result, many voters never see a campaign ad, receive more than a perfunctory candidate visit, or experience the mass mobilization and get-out-the-vote fervor of a real campaign.”

Waldman isn’t alone. According to a 2007 poll by the Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, Harvard University Survey of Political Independents, 78 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of independents responding to the question support changing to a direct, popular voting system for presidential elections.

The same holds true on a local level. According to an unscientific, online poll of Daily Press readers, 79.66 percent of 59 respondents believe the Electoral College should be abolished, as opposed to 16.95 percent who believe the country should stick to the status quo.

“I consider myself somewhat a traditionalist in many areas relating to government - I believe in three branches of government, with discreet powers. However, the Electoral College is something that may have outlived its need,” said Jeannette Wilson, local retiree. “When this nation was first developed, the states were the primary actors in the government. States with small populations wanted to be sure that national candidates gave them due consideration. However, going back to music of the 1960s, ‘the times, they are a’ changin’.”

Wilson thinks the biggest of those changes could be the Internet.

“Events that occur used to take weeks to circulate to the people,” she said. “Now, events are circulated nationally and internationally within an hour of their occurrence. There are downsides, as well. Misinformation is also circulated that rapidly, [as evidenced by] the proliferation of those sites that proclaim [Barack] Obama is a Muslim being e-mailed so commonly.”

Wilson said its up to the people of this country to do their homework when making important voting decisions.

“Small states still fear their issues will not be addressed in a national campaign,” said Wilson. “A possible response is that there are no regional issues that a presidential candidate should address. Immigration reform, for instance, is not a regional issue, it is a national issue.”

Waldman asks his readers to consider the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact as a possible solution.