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

[The Mikado]

Both Argentina and Brazil used to, though they eventually got rid of theirs.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Germany not only uses an electoral college to elect its President, its the same way the EC was initially designed, with the states choosing the electors, not voters directly. Of course the President of Germany is mostly just a ceremonial office.

[Kingpoleon]

It really would work in a country as geographically, demographically, politically, and culturally diverse and encompassing as our own. The Electoral College system is a uniquely American brand. I really can't see it being practiced anywhere else successfully in the world at this point.

India? Perhaps China when it becomes more democratic?

[Figueira]

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.

[White Trash]

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 chief executive of the nation and isn't elected by the body populace.

[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.

[Figueira]

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 chief executive of the nation and isn't elected by the body populace.

But that's only a problem in Westminster systems, not in proportional systems.

[Figueira]

And for the record I think the Westminster system is just as flawed as the US system if not moreso, even though I like the aesthetic of it.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

To be fair, the UK system is an EC of sorts, just with a lot more districts, but it's still winner-take-all

[ApatheticAustrian]

To be fair, the UK system is an EC of sorts, just with a lot more districts, but it's still winner-take-all

the number of districts makes it MUUUUCH unlikelier that it could even be thinkabke that the candidate who gets more votes could lose an election, which is kind of stabbing democracy in the back.

[Former President tack50]

I personally feel it can work in some circumstances.

1: If the EU were to ever federalize and if it elected a president via popular vote, an Electoral College would work fine. The Electoral College was a good idea for the US in the late 18th-early 19th century, and the EU is basically on that stage more or less (or even earlier). Of course there should be some kind of time limit in order not to find the EU in say, 2267 having the same problems as the US in 2017.

That's about it though. In federal states where the differences between states are very large it is also a good idea, but not as much.

Also some minor modifications would improve it like making it a 2 round runoff like France (by number of EVs) and resolving ties by who has the largest popular vote.

For all what's worth I ran all elections in Spain using an Electoral college at the autonomous community level (although not doing any reapportionments, which definitely screwed the results as some places had many more EVs than they would have even under the US system) and I'm pretty sure the country would have imploded twice.

First in 1979. The Socialist Party loses the popular vote by 4.4 points but wins the Electoral College. In a country where democracy had only been a thing for 2 years at that time (and the constitution less than 6 months old) that's not a good start at all. In our timeline there was a coup in 1981 against a centrist government by far right generals. Maybe that coup is successful against a left wing government that lost the election.

Then in 2004-2008. After the largest terrorist attack by far in Spanish history, 3 days after that the election happens, and the incumbent PP wins the election even as it loses the popular vote by almost 5 points. 4 years after that the Socialists do finally win, but it's a extremely close election like 2000 was for the US, being decided by 800 votes in the Balearic Islands. Combine that with the great recession, which hit Spain hard and there would be a lot more infighting in here.

[Former President tack50]

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.

Yeah. Using the UK system for the US is equivalent to having the House elect the president. (so, Trump still gets elected, or to be fair, it'd be more like "Prime Minister Paul Ryan")

[krazen1211]

To be fair, the UK system is an EC of sorts, just with a lot more districts, but it's still winner-take-all

the number of districts makes it MUUUUCH unlikelier that it could even be thinkabke that the candidate who gets more votes could lose an election, which is kind of stabbing democracy in the back.

It's quite thinkable. See the UK 1951 election.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Electoral College was a sordid compromise to solve a series of issues most of which no longer exist (and some no longer existed very quickly in the history of the United States) and were unique to Early America.

It's not a model you can export, even if you wanted to (and note that America when imposing democracy abroad a la Iraq plumbs for a parliamentary system).

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Electoral College was a sordid compromise to solve a series of issues most of which no longer exist (and some no longer existed very quickly in the history of the United States) and were unique to Early America.

It's not a model you can export, even if you wanted to (and note that America when imposing democracy abroad a la Iraq plumbs for a parliamentary system).

America no longer has small, rural states?

(yes I'm aware of the current fad about claiming that the EC was about slavery, and I plain disagree)

[Del Tachi]

To be fair, the UK system is an EC of sorts, just with a lot more districts, but it's still winner-take-all

the number of districts makes it MUUUUCH unlikelier that it could even be thinkabke that the candidate who gets more votes could lose an election, which is kind of stabbing democracy in the back.

And, on the whole, British election results are probably less representative of the electorate than American election results.  The Tories won 51% of the seats with only 37% of the vote.  John Q. Adams is the only American President to ever be elected with a lower percentage of the popular vote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Electoral College was a sordid compromise to solve a series of issues most of which no longer exist (and some no longer existed very quickly in the history of the United States) and were unique to Early America.

It's not a model you can export, even if you wanted to (and note that America when imposing democracy abroad a la Iraq plumbs for a parliamentary system).

America no longer has small, rural states?

(yes I'm aware of the current fad about claiming that the EC was about slavery, and I plain disagree)

No, the main issue was that there was no history of central government between the colonies and so had to share power to a degree between them - local identities being much more important than national ones.

It's a long time since anyone could reasonably claim that was true for most of the United States.

[Del Tachi]

Electoral College was a sordid compromise to solve a series of issues most of which no longer exist (and some no longer existed very quickly in the history of the United States) and were unique to Early America.

It's not a model you can export, even if you wanted to (and note that America when imposing democracy abroad a la Iraq plumbs for a parliamentary system).

America no longer has small, rural states?

(yes I'm aware of the current fad about claiming that the EC was about slavery, and I plain disagree)

No, the main issue was that there was no history of central government between the colonies and so had to share power to a degree between them - local identities being much more important than national ones.

It's a long time since anyone could reasonably claim that was true for most of the United States.

Disagree.  The idea of local representation is much more ingrained into the American psyche than it is in, say, Britain.  A large number of British MPs (especially leadership) are not even from their elected constituencies.  In the United States not only is it considered somewhat of a "scandal" when a member of Congress is found to have limited ties to his district but most Congresspeople see themselves as above all a representative of the interests of their districts more so than just vote-towing, partisan megaphones.

[libertpaulian]

It would only work in countries with a full or mostly presidential system.  It would be impracticable in places with a parliamentary or mostly parliamentary system, given that the prime minister isn't nationally elected but only elected in his or her particular electoral district.  They're only prime minister by virtue of being anointed the party leader.

[Dmitri Covasku]

Most people around the world are confused by the system we hold, so no, it wouldn't work anywhere else. Generally, I'm not a fan of it.