[Ed. – This doesn’t strike me as advisable, on multiple levels. For one thing, the proposal here — for states where the top vote-getter gets less than 50% of the vote to hold runoffs — would probably have prevented Bill Clinton from being elected in both 1992 and 1996. I might think that’s dandy, but I doubt Mr. Foley would. For another thing, there’s no guarantee that the “instant runoff” he suggests would have prevented Trump from getting to 50% in enough states to win. Hillary’s popular vote advantage came overwhelmingly from one state: California. There’s nothing to guarantee that she would have won in more closely contested states if not for Jill Stein.]
Donald Trump amassed 101 Electoral College votes in states where he failed to win 50% of the popular vote. In each of these states, more voters voted for other candidates than for Trump, yet he received all the Electoral College votes. This windfall amounted to one-third of his total (304). Without it, he would have fallen 67 short of the 270 required to prevail. …
The Founding Fathers thought each state would take care to assure that a candidate could not receive its Electoral College votes without support from a majority of its voters.
States can return to the original plan by adopting the same kind of runoff that New Hampshire had or, instead, a modern form of runoff that avoids the need for a second round of ballots. Known as instant-runoff voting, it enables voters to rank their preferences among multiple candidates.