I was thinking of the many parliamentary democracies in Europe and Asia, and you are correct that many countries that emerged in the 20th century use a congressional system with a president. Even so, I think the core of my statement stands. Direct presidential election without protection against a minority plurality winner is rare.
In your list above, Russia, Brazil, and Indonesia all use a runoff if the president doesn't get 50% on the first round (I don't know if Nigeria uses a runoff or not in their current form of government). The US system is a pre-modern way to conduct a runoff - a hybrid based on the experience from Britain, the novelty of an elected head of state, and the lack of good communication in the 18th century to conduct a direct runoff. In the Constitution, Congress acts as the runoff if 50% of the electors are not won. Above all, the founders wanted to prevent a tyranny in the new country and the overlapping majority requirements were one way to accomplish that.
To my point. If US was to be properly modern in its election for president, then there should be a runoff provision if no candidate receives 50%. This could be with a second round of voting or with an IRV system. Any system without that type of basic protection would be sorely lacking, IMO.
Given that the US's two-party system which is barely broken and where candidates will usually win with more or close to 50%, one could say without erring much that it is equivalent to the runoffs used in mass democracies such as Brazil and Indonesia. My point was that in those states, Brazil in particular, candidates have won while losing highly populated areas. Lula was reelected with over 60% of the vote in 2006 despite losing the most populated state. Collor won comfortably in 1989 despite losing by a
landslide in almost
all major cities. Furthermore, there is no proof that candidates in Brazil (or Indonesia, I don't know) focus their campaigns excessively on big states such as SP/MG/RJ/BA.
Poll
