Mexico elects their President by direct popular vote, but most of their elections have been textbook examples of why that's NOT a good idea, particularly the last one with was riddled with so many reports of election irregularities and voter fraud (and who trusts the Mexican government to produce an accurate count?) that Calderon's razon thin win of 35.8% to Obrador's 35.3% made it impossible for him to claim a mandate and enough margin of error that Obrador got a lot of press by declaring himself the "true" President of Mexico and marching around with a Presidential sash to the cheers of thousands of supporters.
France and Indonesia use a series of run-off elections and have different rounds of balloting so voters narrow down the choices until there are only two left and the winner gets an absolutely majority instead of a "first past the post" win by plurality. That seems the most sensible way to have a popular vote election, but in the U.S. if we abolished the electoral college we'd still have winner-by-plurality unless you passed yet another constitutional amendment. The electoral college gives a clear advantage in this case -- even though you can deadlocks and wins by plurality when the electors vote, it's EXTREMELY rare -- even in a 3-way presidential race like '92 or '68. The electoral college usually produces a much clearer victory than the popular vote does.
I suppose I would prefer a popularly elected President over a Parlimentary-style system where Congres chooses the President (must be frustating to live in England and you're only able to cast a vote against Cameron, Brown, or Blair if you happen to live in their local district!), though both have their advantages of disadvantages. In this case I agree the compromise solution of having the people indirectly elect the President thru the electoral college was the best solution. I just wish we'd allocate electoral votes by congressional district instead of winner-take-all.
The founders got this one right, but once again I believe there are many times where there was a perfectly legitimate reason to amend the constitution. Just because the founders thought it was best to have the runner-up in a Presidential election become the Vice President doesn't mean it worked that way in reality.
That’s a good point.
Mexico is the only country that I can think of off the top of my head that elects Presidents by mere plurality vote. They have 3 major parties now and may never see a majority President again. Most popular vote President countries have runoffs. I haven’t heard many PV supporters in this country suggest a runoff or instant run off ballot.
Auh is right it would be a help to third parties. I could even see some liberal judge declaring that any candidate on the ballot in any state had to be on the ballot in all them.
The recount issue alone should dissuade any thinking person. A nationwide recount would be like something out your worst nightmares.