..
But point well-taken. I will be voting for no such. Until the voting changes to plurality voting...
There is a good reason why the founders chose not to have plurality voting. The Presidential election is actually an election by the States and not a majority of people.
This is a Republic, not a Democracy, and in this American Republic they forsaw that the election and your future should not turn on a simple majority with the deciding vote cast by some nutcase, fruitcake in San Francisco or Seattle. That is what plurality voting can do.
There is no reason why plurality voting could not be used on a state-to-state basis, keeping electoral college.
E.g. Someone writes in as vote #1) Mattis #2) Trump
If Mattis didn’t get enough votes in North Carolina to win, then his votes get tossed, then the total votes for Trump get counted and if he beats Hillary, then he gets all the electoral votes for North Carolina.
Its not a difficult concept, sort of like instant runoff elections but from a single election. It would encourage people to vote for individuals and not parties.
George Washington himself warned about the dangers of political parties. And I don’t think the plurality/instant-runoff voting method was even considered (or technically feasible) 200 year ago.