Electoral Dysfunction?

It's not the Electoral College that's the problem. We have plenty of problems to go around. The system at its core, except in Cambridge and a couple other places, is not merely undemocratic, it's antidemocratic.

Lets' make up, for example, an election: The candidates are Shrub, Nerf, and Bogontz. With numbers off the top of my head. If 50 percent of the people thought Nerf was the best choice but 4/5 of them (40 percent of the total) were convinced by the media that he didn't have a chance and so voted for Bogontz, they thereby voted against Nerf. Likewise, the other 1/5 (10 percent of the total) voted for Nerf anyway, damn the torpedoes, and they thereby voted against Bogontz. None of them wanted Shrub. There were another 3 percent who did want Bogontz. His total is 43. Shrub got 45 percent. The majority didn't want him. He won.

Is this democratic? Duh!

In a few places, and it should be everywhere, you ought to be able to indicate:
1. Your first choice
2. Your second choice
3. If it is so, the fact that none of the people on the ballot are acceptable for the particular office.

This is not real easy to tabulate if you have to do it by hand, but it's important enough that in a few places they have been doing it anyway for a very long time. (Maybe not the last one, generally called "binding none of the above") In these modern times with computers, it's a snap.

Now we come to the machine problems. Very simple: use open-source software. Total transparency. As Eric S. Raymond has pointed out, with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow.