I don't know--to me, both systems are flawed; and of course, no system is perfect. Even "perfect" proportional representation systems are typically very complicated, and do often have unpredictable results as a consequence. They also lead to more strategic voting in a lot of cases, which I guess isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does put a bit of a fly in the ointment, since those systems are generally designed to make all votes worth the same, and to encourage people to vote with their conscience.
Canada's system does have one major advantage over the U.S.--simplicity. Why do you suppose more Canadians participate in elections than Americans, proportionately? My feeling is that people feel more enfranchised by the system, whereas in the U.S. the entrenchment of incumbents combined with the fact that most states are "not in play" makes people feel like a single vote is pretty irrelevant. And it's to some extent a numbers game: if your vote is one in 60-100,000, that's pretty good. If your vote is one in 17 million, you might feel like it's more important to get dinner on for the kids. Smaller districts means more direct representation--and though the party system mutes it somewhat, that's what we have in Canada. Would it make a difference if we could vote separately for the Prime Minister? I don't really think so: most people vote on the basis of their feelings about a party leader anyway. Unless you think Rob Anders got in on the basis of his personal charisma.
Canadian elections are run more efficiently and tallied faster--and that's partly a question of infrastructure, but more immediately the result of FEDERAL oversight, something that the American system sorely lacks. And yes, although that's to some extent a separate issue from the "electoral college," it is an important factor in determining how democratic a system is--as the Supreme court (perhaps unwittingly) acknowledged in their otherwise fairly messed-up decision in Bush v. Gore.
Incidentally, here's a link to a description of one proposal for doing away with the electoral college. It's a little wacky, but may make for good discussion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us...59&partner=AOL