[JediJones]

Basing the presidency on the popular vote is like awarding the World Series championship to the team that scores the most runs, rather than the team that wins the most games.

I'm not talking about the popular/electoral distinction here at all. This is about when the top vote getter doesn't get 50% of the votes due to 3 or more candidates splitting the vote, a la Clinton in 1992. In that event you absolutely need to have some form of runoff vote, or your election has no connection to democracy at all, it's just a random event or possibly a rigged game if the third party candidate was a plant. A runoff vote should apply to any state where that kind of split happened.

[okie01]

This is about when the top vote getter doesn't get 50% of the votes due to 3 or more candidates splitting the vote, a la Clinton in 1992.

Perot didn't win a single EV.

And Clinton won a clear majority of the electoral votes.

Why would there be any need for a "runoff"?

[Dave W]

Silly. What a silly post. Your assignment is to sit back and actually write the entire process from start to finish as to how you would reform the entire presidential election. It is not good enough to just state that someone needs to get to 50%.

Additionally, we are not a democracy; we are a republic. Think about it. That is why we do what we do. It appears the educational system did not serve you well.

I think a better use of your time would be spent contemplating the best way to reform our schools.

[LS]

A runoff. Right. Can you even imagine the litigation after the “first” election? The political season needs to be SHORTER, not longer.