The electoral college, blue and red states, numbers spread across a map and the electoral vote versus popular vote are outside Australia's political vocabulary, which can bewilder observers of the presidential election from across the Pacific.

So how do American voters elect their president?

To attempt to explain it, let's imagine Australia has an elected head of state and chooses them using America's "electoral college" method.

Assuming voters would choose the same party in the presidential race as they did in House of Representatives elections, and the Liberal and National parties retained their coalition agreement, Australia would have elected a Liberal head of state at every election between 2004 and 2016, barring 2007.

Winning the coveted title of Australian president, governor-general or chancellor would not be as simple as getting more votes than your opponents.

Like the US, Australia is a federation of states, which would be fundamental to a local electoral college system.

Rather than a one-vote, one-value system, voters choose "electors", party-appointed delegates who pledge to vote for a presidential candidate state-by-state.

In the US, there are 538 electoral college places, and each state is allocated votes based on the number of representatives they hold in both houses of Congress, while the District of Columbia receives an equal number to the least populous state.

After the election, each elector visits their state capital and casts their vote, almost always but not exclusively in line with their state's choice.

If this system was applied to Australia, 226 electoral college votes would be up for grabs, with a party requiring 114 to get across the line.

Based on current House of Representatives and Senate figures, NSW would hold 59 votes, Victoria 49, Queensland 42, Western Australia 28, South Australia 23 and Tasmania 17.

The ACT and Northern Territory would have only four electoral college votes apiece.

In 48 of America's 50 states, the most popular candidate wins that jurisdiction's entire haul of electoral college votes.

To put this into practice, let's go back to the hypothetical Australian presidential race.

Imagine you're a Labor voter in NSW. You cast your ballot for a Labor presidential and vice-presidential team at the 2016 election.

Based on the two-party preferred result from that election, however, the Liberal/National presidential ticket receives a greater number of votes, meaning all of the state's 59 electoral college votes – calculated from its 47 lower house and 12 upper house seats – are given to party delegates.

Labor receives no electoral college votes from NSW in the presidential race.

After the election, the 59 Liberal/National aligned electoral college voters – made up of party veterans and officials – visit NSW Parliament House and cast their votes, all of them for the Coalition team.

They combine with electoral college appointments from Queensland and Western Australia to pledge 129 votes for the Coalition, beating Labor's 97 from the remaining states and territories and granting the Liberal/National ticket the presidency.

Australian National University political scientist John Hart said advocates argued the system gave the winners an exaggerated majority, creating stability and a mandate to lead.

"Even a narrow popular vote victory can turn into quite a significant electoral college victory, so they would argue it results in a clearer victory for the candidate," he said.

But close races can also have the opposite effect. Because the electoral college votes do not equally match the population of voters in each state, the winner of the electoral college can still lose the popular vote.

For example, in our Australian scenario, the Coalition would lose the two-party preferred popular vote in 2010 and still take the top job with 129 electoral college votes to Labor's 97.

The "runner-up" president, as Dr Hart termed them, has won three times in US history, most recently when George W Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000, despite receiving more than half a million fewer votes.

Dr Hart said such a scenario was a constant risk in close races, and forced campaigns to focus on distributing their popularity across enough states to make it over the line.

"The polls are closing in and Trump is gaining on Clinton," he said. "It's perfectly possible that, once again, the electoral college could produce a winner that has fewer popular votes than his or her opponent."

In the US, the system creates "blue" or "red" states, from which the electoral college votes are almost guaranteed to go to the same party at every election.

Republicans can rely on "red states" including Texas, Wyoming and Alabama, while "blue states" such New York, California and Illinois consistently deliver votes to the Democrats, freeing both parties to focus on more crucial swing states.

Based on two-party preferred results in the House of Representatives at every federal election since 2007, Western Australia would be a reliable "blue state" for the Coalition, while the ACT, Victoria and Tasmania would be "red states" for Labor.

Whichever side wins this week, Australians are sure to be watching and scratching their heads at the process, though they will not be alone.

"The whole electoral college system is a mystery to most Americans," Dr Hart said. "They tend to judge elections on the popular vote anyway."