Withth the 2024 election approaching, more Americans favor moving away from the Electoral College. According to the Pew Research Center, “sixty-five percent of Americans say that the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.” To understand the current system and the possible changes that may be implemented, it is necessary to examine how the rest of the world elects its leaders.
In the rest of the democratic world, most heads of state are chosen in one of two ways. In countries that use parliamentary systems, such as England and Spain, the prime minister is determined by whichever party has the most seats in the parliament. In countries with direct presidential elections, such as France and Uruguay, the president is chosen by a national vote in which the majority winner takes office. In contrast, the United States is the only country in the world that uses an electoral system, which assigns electors to each state based on its congressional representation and population. These electors ultimately cast the decisive votes for the presidency, giving more electoral power to the states, leading to elections playing out across a few select swing districts such as Pennsylvania and Michigan, and can disenfranchise voters in very Republican or very Democratic states, such as Louisiana or New York.
The U.S. Electoral College system contrasts sharply with democracies such as France, where the president is chosen through a two-round system, and a candidate must secure the majority of votes to win outright. If no candidate achieves this in the first round, a second round is held between the top two contenders, ensuring that the eventual winner has broad support.
Yet, there are still French citizens who feel unrepresented by their election process. Francois Monroc, a teacher at Poly Prep who was born and raised in France, described, “The last two elections Emmanuel Macron won, but it felt more like people voted against Marine Le Pen than for Emmanuel Macron, and yet he gets to run the whole country.”
Similar to France’s election, in the 2020 U.S. presidential race, more people voted for Biden out of distaste for Trump rather than enthusiasm about Biden. According to YouGov at the time, “59% of registered Republican voters say they’re enthusiastic about Trump while 36% of registered Democrat voters say they’re enthusiastic about Biden.” This problem remains a commonly-cited issue in both the U.S and French electoral systems and one of the major flaws in a winner-take-all system: two parties tend to erase the nuanced needs of a diverse electorate.
Unlike a direct, winner-take-all democratic vote, a parliamentary system is about coalition building. Parliamentary systems like those in Spain, England, and Israel integrate the selection of the head of government into legislative elections. Citizens vote for representatives, and the party that gains the largest number of seats chooses their leader to serve as Prime Minister.
In Spain, “The head of the coalition or majority party becomes Prime Minister and is confirmed by a legislative vote,” explained Teresa Calvo, a Spanish teacher at Poly Prep who grew up in Spain. Similarly, “In England, each person goes to vote for a party, but there are 650 constituencies and you vote in your constituency. The party with the largest number of seats chooses the Prime Minister,” described Rachel Jupp, a producer for the BBC who grew up in England. In Israel, “The leader of the party with the most seats in the Knesset [the parliament of Israel] typically serves as Prime Minister,” said Yonatan Gutfeld, a musician who grew up in Israel.
The number of parties in parliamentary systems frequently leads to difficult coalition talks, where several parties with different legislative agendas must join together to form a governing majority. These systems differ from the US in their diversity of representation. According to an article by the Stanford Social Innovation Review, the multi-party dynamics encourage a broader range of political viewpoints and foster more inclusive policy-making, whereas the U.S.’s two-party system can limit the number of political opinions represented in the government.
However, there are also downsides to parliamentary systems. In Israel, coalition building has led to significant political compromises, as evidenced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2022-2023 coalition, which included far-right extremist parties. According to The Guardian, two of these compromises were “a plan to carry out ‘judicial reform’ – a euphemism for weakening the Supreme Court and other checks and balances, according to party sources quoted in the Israeli media” and calling “for a restrictive definition of who is a Jew – and thus eligible for automatic citizenship under Israel’s law of return.” Britain faced similar challenges with the 2010-2015 government formed between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. This government was marked by ongoing tensions between two opposing factions, which resulted in slower decision-making and less decisive governance, a common problem in parliamentary democracies, according to the Institute for Government.
All democratic systems contrast sharply with those of anti-democratic nations. Maibe Ponet, who grew up in Venezuela and now works as the Vice President for Communications and Publications at Guttmacher Institute, explained, “Venezuela has a direct vote where people cast their votes, and whoever gets the most votes wins.” However, in reality, Venezuela’s electoral system is not so democratic. Under leaders like Nicolás Maduro, the government exerts control over the National Electoral Council, leading to accusations of vote tampering, voter intimidation, and exclusion of opposition candidates. Ponet recounted, “It is widely believed that since at least 2017, the winner has not won the popular vote, a form of dictatorship with a fixed outcome.”
“The suppression of political rivals, control over media and information, and international criticism have further undermined the legitimacy of Venezuelan elections,” continued a July article in the New York Times. This highlights the stark difference between how democratic and anti-democratic systems approach electoral processes, with the former emphasizing transparency and competition and the latter marked by manipulation and suppression. The sole benefit that anti-democratic systems offer is expediency. In a survey done by International IDEA, they found that “19 countries around the world reveal that people are more likely to express positive thoughts about non-democratic leadership when it comes with efficiency and progress.”
In interviews with five people worldwide, the most common issue cited with the U.S. electoral system is the possibility of a president being elected without winning the popular vote. Jonathan Wald, a news reporter for ITV News who grew up in the UK, explained, “In 2016, Hillary [Clinton] had more votes but lost, and in 2000, Al Gore had more votes but lost… That is quite damaging to the integrity of the system.”
“It’s frustrating for someone who got the most votes not to be the President, especially considering the impact that a president can have for generations,” said Monroc.
Other voters take issue with how the system leaves residents of large, politically homogeneous areas less represented. “We have this dysfunctional Electoral College,” said New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg. “It ensures that the voters in states that are very Republican or very Democratic don’t matter very much, so it distorts an election that only takes place in a few swing states.”
How do we solve this? Goldberg believes in the elimination of the Electoral College. One of the key alternatives Goldberg suggests is ranked-choice voting. As per Fairvote.org, “RCV is straightforward: Voters have the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so forth. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.” Goldberg said, “You don’t have to worry that by voting for your preferred candidate, you’re giving the election to your least preferred candidate.” While countries worldwide grapple with their own electoral issues, such as the overrepresentation of specific parties in parliamentary systems or unfair elections under authoritarian regimes, the United States faces an entirely different challenge: a system allowing a candidate to become President without winning the popular vote. In a constantly changing world, exploring options such as ranked-choice voting and studying the systems of other democracies might bring useful insights.
