Most critics of direct election of the president assume that it would require a runoff provision. Although it is possible that such a rule would encourage third-party candidacies, there is no need to institute a runoff under direct election of the president. Advocates of the electoral college are correct that America is better off without a second-ballot runoff election. They are incorrect, however, that the electoral college is the only way to avoid such a runoff. Although there is no voting system that guarantees that the most preferred candidate will win, both plurality election and ranked choice voting are more likely to produce the Condorcet winner than the electoral college. Neither system requires a second ballot. The electoral college is not essential for a two-party system and actually encourages third parties to run presidential candidates and discourages party competition in many states. There is no evidence that direct election of the president would polarize political parties. Similarly, there would be little incentive for secret deals under direct election and severe constraints on the bargains third parties could make. Moreover, there is much less chance of such deals under direct election than under the contingent election provision of the electoral college.

With the increasing fear that democracy is faltering worldwide, it is perhaps naïve to think that there could actually exist a rational and well-ordered system for electing the president of the United States. Yet the opposite idea—that the process for picking the president is irrational and arbitrary, failing to reflect the real preferences of the electorate—is deeply unsettling. The American president wields too much power for the incumbent to be the product of an incoherent procedure. For the sake of humanity as a whole, as well as the people of the United States, it is essential to endeavor as best as is humanly possible to conceptualize what a coherent and sensible system for presidential elections might be.