EC supporters: Do you think any other place should have an "electoral college"?

[muon2]

The winner of our elections usually wins the PV. Parliamentary systems select the chief executive in a way that is very similar to the Electoral College.

not at all.

1) johnson and stein didn't get any seats out of their millions of votes.

2) those non-seats also couldn't be transferred in the first place.

3) hillary won the a clear majority of those votes and wouldn't regularily need the non-existing other votes int he first place.

4) most of all, we are not killing anyone's vote just cause they are living in a federal state run by the opposite majority/living inside a city instead of a rural region.

over here, there is representation, the EC is a system which gives power only to the small minority living in tipping point states.

hillary would have won in a majority-vote system without the EC and in a represenative, parliamentary democracy - no contest.

If the US was divided into UK style constituencies with FPTP, it's not at all clear that Hillary would have won in parliament. She would still have too many votes overconcentrated in urban seats.

[muon2]

If the US was divided into UK style constituencies with FPTP, it's not at all clear that Hillary would have won in parliament. She would still have too many votes overconcentrated in urban seats.

depends on gerrymandering and the construction of the system, but i think you are up to something there.

anyway, ofc i respect the EC since the US could have changed it anytime and came close to it a few decades ago...it's just frustrating if some people are calling it more..."democratic".

Trump won 230 CDs to 206 for Clinton (including DC). I might assume that all the CDs drawn by independent commissions and the courts are about what the UK commission might draw. That leaves the states subject to a partisan gerrymander. Some of the suburban Pub seats in those states went for Clinton anyway (eg. PA 6,7), so there's no need to un-gerrymander them. That leaves me looking at roughly 8 or 9 CDs that might have been drawn by a neutral body that would increase Hillary's count. That would still leave Trump with a parliamentary majority.

[muon2]

The 50 state governments and France (the two places mentioned by OP) are both examples of unitary governments, whereas an electoral college makes sense in a federal system.

In fact, very few democratic countries elect their chief executives directly.  The UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, India all use parliamentary systems which, I would argue, is far more of an affront to democracy than the electoral college.

Care to explain why you think that?

Voters do not directly vote for their chief executive.  They vote for an MP who then votes for a Prime Minister in parliament.  The electoral college is a more direct election process, and it at least allows voters to illustrate a preference for a split legislative/executive branch.

What is someone to do if they love their local MP but hate that party's leader/candidate for PM?  or vice-versa? 

Same thing you do if you love Gregg Harper (or whoever, I don't know where in MS you are) but hate Paul Ryan?

Also your critique applies to the UK and India. It doesn't really apply to Germany, Sweden, or Japam.

The issue is that Paul Ryan isn't the nation's chief executive. The Prime Minister in the Westminster parliamentary system is the chiesf executive of the nation and isn't elected by the body populace.

That's because the drafters of the Constitution didn't want the President to owe anything to the votes of Congress, keeping with the idea of a separation of powers. The result was a body that numbered as many as Congress, but was independent of Congress.