Election of the President and Vice President of the United States is an indirect election in which citizens of the United States who are registered to vote in one of the fifty states or Washington, D.C. cast ballots for a set of members of the U.S. Electoral College, known as electors. These electors then in turn cast direct votes, known as electoral votes, for President and Vice President of the United States. The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for President or Vice President is then elected to that office. If no candidate receives an absolute majority for President, the House of Representatives chooses the President, and if no one receives a majority for Vice President, the Senate chooses the Vice President. The Electoral College and its procedure is established in the U.S. Constitution by Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 4; and the Twelfth Amendment, which replaced Clause 3 of Article II, Section 1 after the amendment was ratified in 1804.

Article Two of the United States Constitution originally established the method of presidential elections, including the Electoral College. This was a result of a compromise between those the American founding fathers who wanted the Congress to choose the president, and those who preferred a national popular vote- the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Each state is allocated a number of electors that is equal to the size of its delegation in both houses of Congress combined. Constitutionally, the manner for choosing electors is determined within each state by its legislature.

Criticisms of the Current Regime:

The presidential election process remains controversial, with critics arguing that it is inherently undemocratic, and discourages voter participation and turnout in many areas of the country.

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College:
Candidates can fail to get the most votes in the nationwide popular vote in a Presidential election and still win that election. The winners of the nationwide popular vote and the Electoral College vote differ in close elections. In 1824, Jackson won the popular vote but failed to win the majority votes in Electoral College; consequently John Quincy Adams was elected president. Then in the election of 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes, in 1888 Benjamin Harrison and in 2000 George Bush lost the popular vote outright. Similarly, in the 2016 elections, President Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, and the issue has become a flash point ever since between the supporters of each candidate.

Democracy activists argue that the presence of Electoral College makes the American election undemocratic. Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking to replace the Electoral College with a direct popular vote, but none has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress.

Problems with Primaries and Caucuses:
Because of the staggered nature of the primary season, voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other small states which traditionally hold their primaries and caucuses first in January usually have a major impact on the races. Campaign activity, media attention, and voter participation are usually higher in these states, as the candidates attempt to build momentum and generate a bandwagon effect in these early primaries. Conversely, voters in California and other large states which traditionally hold their primaries last in June usually end up having no say in which the presidential candidates will be. The races are usually over by then, and thus the campaigns, the media, and voters have little incentive to participate in these late primaries.

Primary and caucus reform proposals include a National Primary held on a single day; or the Interregional Primary Plan, where states would be grouped into six regions, and each of the regions would rotate every election on who would hold their primaries first.

The unfairness of Super Delegates
Both the major political parties require a candidate to win a specific number of delegates to gain his or her party’s nomination. In 2016 Presidential elections these numbers were: 2,383 of 4,765 delegates for the Democratic Party and 1,237 of 2,472 delegates for the Republican Party.

The presences of unpledged, or unbound delegates, or super delegates, who are free to support any Presidential candidate of their choosing have been a moot issue. The existence of this class of delegates tarnishes the fairness of the primary campaigns. In the year 2016, Democratic Party had 716 super delegates, majority of whom supported Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. The issue was raised by Bernie Sanders supporters who alleged that the Democratic Party was inclined towards Hillary Clinton as a nominee of the party.

Influence of Money in Presidential Elections:
Money is a critical ingredient to electoral success in the Presidential elections. Unlike botched democracies of third world countries, money might not buy Presidential elections, but without it a candidate is not even in the running.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
In 2010, the US Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled corporations and unions could spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates. The court declared that spending by labour unions and companies — including certain types of non-profit corporations — did “not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption” so long as it was not done in concert or coordination with a political candidate’s own campaign. This decision has led to a surge of Money in politics.

It has led to creation of Super PACs (Political Action Committees) that support a candidate. Traditional candidate campaign committees face significant limits in the amount of money they can raise from individuals, parties, and groups. Individual contributions to campaign committees, for example, are limited to $2,700 per cycle. However Super PACs can accept unlimited contributions, they can be funded by a handful of large donors. While Super PACs must disclose their donors, donations can be filtered through 501(c) (4) (non-profit organisations according to IRS) which hide the identity of contributors. These Super PACs usually funded by large wealthy donors support a candidate who may be asked for favours in return.

Similarly, in the past, billionaires have used super PACs to advance their pet causes such as gun violence and climate control.

According to the American National Election Studies (ANES), only 12 percent of Americans contributed to a campaign during 2012. An even small percent (0.23 percent according to Open Secrets- https://www.opensecrets.org/) contribute $200 or more. Yet, in the 2012 election campaign, according to numerous reports both the candidates Obama and Mitt Romney spent about 1bn dollars. Such mammoth use of money forces candidates to pander to big businesses and wealthy donors who would demand favours quid pro quo, if the candidate is elected.

In the past it has been observed that candidates who drop out of an election typically do so because their funding sources dry up. Funding sources dry up when donors start to believe the chances of victory are near zero. Unable to show any momentum during the 2016 presidential campaign, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, and Martin O’Malley saw their financial support dwindle and were subsequently forced out of the race.

Use of Foreign Money:
Another concern that has ignited debate is the use of money from foreign donors in the presidential campaigns. A million-dollar donation in 2012 by a Canadian-owned corporation to a pro-Mitt Romney super PAC sparked legal concerns and opened up the Citizens United decision to new criticism. Similarly, Hillary Clinton was alleged to have received funding from the Saudi Government-the issue was used for political point scoring at more than occasions by her rival Donald Trump to sway voters against Clinton.

Lengthy Election Cycle:

The current law requires that candidates to a federal office must file a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission before they can receive contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or make expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.  A trend of presidential candidates declaring their intentions to run as early as the Spring of the previous calendar year so they can start raising and spending the money needed for their nationwide campaign has been set. This leads to a ridiculously lengthy election campaign that costs both time and capital of not only the politicians who could have spent this time framing better policies to serve their constituents, but also the general masses.