ethod the states hold a poplar election and the electoral votes are allocated by percentage. Thus if a state had ten electoral votes, and candidate A received 70% of the popular vote, and candidate B received 18% of the vote, and candidate C received 12% of the vote, then candidate A would receive seven electoral votes, B would get two electoral votes, and C would get one vote. In a worse case scenario, a president could be elected with a minimum of 42% of the popular vote. While this is not as accurate as a real direct vote, it is much more accurate than the current general ticket system. The reason this system does not require a constitutional amendment is because it can be imposed on an individual state basis. In order for this system to work properly, it must also be part of state legislation to require the electors to vote on what they have pledged to vote. I also believe that a majority of electors should not be required, just a system of whoever has the most votes wins. If there were a tie, my expensive model would be to have a re-election with only the two candidates that tied. It is also possible to just redistribute the votes using only the two main candidates and then recount the votes. I do not think it is the House's job to solve voting disputes. I think the best strategy to getting a change in a 200-year-old system is to start small, test out a new system on a smaller basis, and if people like it, it will spread and eventually take over the national policy. At that time it would become an amendment. But no matter how change comes about, there is only one way to get that change. It is to get involved. Every American that believes that the presidential election system is wrong, needs to speak up and get it changed. I personally would start at the state level, but no matter where someone starts, they will get one-step closer. Get involved; get heard; get change. ...
