Please don't be irritated now, it is not to say that the US election system sucks, only to speak of it. For me, it has lots of defaults (but there is no system which is perfect, the french one has default : too much lists, so a too big dispertion of voices) The most important for me is that a man can be elected with less voices than the other. Like Bush in 2000, but it could happen again in the future. So it is not really "democratic", in the sense that normally, the elected person is the one who get the most part of voices. The US system is the undirect universal suffrage. (France had this system, before, but we change in 1962 for the direct universal suffrage). No problem with it, we have still it for the mayors' elections and the senators' elections. In France, when the President was elected with the undirect way, by a Great Electors college, he - the President - had not a real real power, the Parliament possessed it. But in the USA, it is not a parliamentary regime, it is a presidential regime. So the president's election is really the most most most important. The problem is that the repartitions of the great electors is simple : the list who get more voices than the other get ALL the great electors...It is not a proportionnal repartition. In France we had this kind of repartition - proportionnal - for the election of the deputy - for the "Assemblée Nationale", the main court of the Parliament, whiwh is also constituated by the "Senat - . But problem with it : it was complex, and not real majority can appear with this system. It is really hard to calcul it. this system was at the origin of the ministerial instability if the IIIrd and IVth Republic. So, you will say to me that if this system sucks, why should we use it ? in fact, it doesn't suck. With it, there is a best representation of the elector's choice. There is problem for list election, like for the deputy or senators...when several seats are the aim, for several persons. But for the presidential election, no problem. Why ? because no problem of the repartition of the seats : only 2 persons. The great electors will vote for one or the other, not for 12 lists. The actual situation is that if you win in Florida with 1,000,000 voices more than your opponent, you will get 27 great electors. He : 0. But if after you lose in California with only 100,000 voices less, you will have 0 great electors, and he : 55.so he will have 28 more great electors than you, but you'll have 900,000 voices more. Because the system is the pertaining to the majority ballot. with only one voices more, you get ALL the G.E. for a local election, it is normal, like for a mayor, a governor....but for the whole USA : it is unfair to lose a democratic election with more voices than the winner. So, if the system was the proportionnal repartition, it could be better - maybe not, but it could be - . Imagine : the state A with 10,000,000 voters, and with 10 great electors - GE - , and the state B with 15,000,000 voters and 15 GE. The first candidate get in the state A 8,000,000 voices and in the B 7,000,000. with the actual system : he gets 10 GE with 15,000,000 voices, the other gets 15 GE with 10,000,000. With a proportionnal repartition : imagine : every 1,000,000 voices, it will do 1 GE. So : the first candidate gets in the state A, with his 8,000,000 voices, 8 GE. and his opponent gets 2 GE. In the state B, the first get 7 GE with his 7,000,000 voices, his adversary 8 GE. Total : -first person : 8+7 GE >> 15 GE ; 8 millions + 7 millions >> 15 millions voices -second person : 2+8>> 10 GE ; 2 millions + 8 millions >> 10 millions voices. the man who win his the one who get the more voices. If the whole States of the USA would do it, maybe - maybe - would it be better. What do you think about it ?