Most all democracies elect their top leader through a presidential or parliamentary method that involves the whole country on a one person, one vote basis.

• In presidential systems used widely in Latin America and around the globe, countries use a national popular vote to elect their president, as do all of our 50 states in their gubernatorial elections.  Most countries have with a runoff provision to ensure a majority winner.
• In parliamentary systems popular in Europe or Asia American, the winning party or coalition chooses the leader.  Though indirect, it still is a “one person, one vote” type of election in which potential leaders are known and campaign ahead of time giving all the country’s voters a comparatively equal and a direct say in who wins.

** The legacy of the Electoral College is in large part because U.S. is by far the world’s oldest democracy, starting off in the late 1700’s more tentatively and with more compromises and restrictions.  The Electoral College was such a compromise like others probably never meant to last by the framers. More below.

Issues

• The votes of most voters are diminished or sidelined.  The Electoral College prevents most voters from meaningful participation in the election of the President. Votes just count more if you live in a swing state.  Increasingly, many leave their home state to campaign for their favorite candidate before and on Election Day.
• One Person, One Vote is violated. The Electoral College goes against democracy’s most fundamental promise – one person, one vote. The vote of a person living in one of the ten smallest states counts, on average, 60% more than the vote of a person in one of the ten largest states.
• Safe states sure to go to one or other party and focus on “swing states” where the winner is in doubt. In 2000 and 2004 there were about thirteen swing states. In 2008, some project only nine battleground state where most of the campaign will unfold.
• Party spending and public debate directed to a small population in swing states. In 2004, the two major parties spent well over 90% of their campaign money, time and resources in 15 battleground states in the six weeks leading up to the election.  Conversely, these candidates spent almost nothing for voter education or voter mobilization in the other 30+ states, where the parties considered the outcome to be  already decided.  Candidates target most resources to an even smaller subset of swing voters in the swing states.
• Voter turnout is discouraged.  Voter turnout is consistently lower in non-swing states than in battleground states.  In 2004, for example, turnout was twelve points lower in the 35 less competitive states where the results were more lopsided and less money was spent by the major candidates, representing potentially millions of voters.
• The swing states do not reflect the U.S. population as a whole.  In 2004 swing states were disproportionately non-Hispanic white in race.  This disparity has effectively recreated the same kind of racial exclusion that existed explicitly in original compromise of the Constitution, which was eliminated, in theory, by the 14th, 15th, and 16th Amendments. This trend is likely to continue.
• The vote can conceivably be non-binding.  In some states, electors are not legally required to vote for the person who has won the majority of the state’s votes.  While failing to do so may be a rare occurrence, it’s another drawback of this compromised voting method.
• The winner can win without a majority.  Most recently in 2000, George W. Bush was elected president of the United States while receiving more than 500,000 less than his main opponent( Sen. Al Gore).  This is the fourth time in U.S. history that the Electoral College has given the presidency to someone other than the winner of the popular vote  – an outcome that is difficult to cite as an sucessful example of the execution of modern democratic principles.