It's really two and a half. De Gaulle - Pompidou - Chirac -Sarkozy were part of the same party that morphed and changed names everytime there was a new leader. Miterrand - Hollande are the other. Giscard was a one-term president from a party that has always been a junior partner of Main Right-Center party. So he's the half.

And German presidents don't count. You have to look at the Chancellor. It has been CDU or SDP since 1945 except for nine days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chancellors_of_Germany

I will point out that I'm actually a fan of the electoral college in the present day, and believe it serves a useful purpose.

The quintessential problem in American politics is the different regions of the country, which all have their own set of interests and values. And, in general, people get very upset when they feel they aren't represented at all; for example, I live in the lone county in my state that consistently trends liberal, and I know that my vote effectively doesn't count for anything state-wide or any national election, because I'm surrounded and outnumbered by far more conservative voters. This is frustrating and leads to apathy.

Similarly, when a significant region of the country is effectively disenfranchised in this fashion, serious problems result. And that's what would happen if we replaced the electoral college by direct popular election: a small number of coastal population centers would essentially decide every election, leaving a huge swathe of the country realizing that their votes don't count.

Under the current electoral system, meanwhile, candidates for President have to be responsive to the interests of a broader cross-section of the country in order to get elected. On the whole, I think that's a good thing, because it ensures that we don't end up in a tyranny-of-the-urban-majority situation.