Not sure what you’re talking about with the multiplying fractions, rounding, adjustment so I don’t think I’m proposing that.
I am saying that the number of electoral votes in a state is divided into 100 (for 100% of the vote).
In a state with 15 electoral votes, 15 into 100 comes out between 6 and 7 in whole numbers. So any candidate gets 1 electoral vote for each 7% of the state’s votes. 14% gets 2 electoral votes, 21% gets 3 electoral votes, etc.
The electoral votes not awarded by this method could go to the winner of the state’s popular vote as previously suggested to keep it simple or could be awarded by which candidate(s) are closest to the 7% in their remaining votes.
For example, one candidate gets 17% of the vote in this state. That candidate gets 2 electoral votes and has 3% leftover votes that are not enough to qualify for an electoral vote.
Another candidate gets 31% of the vote in this state. That qualifies for 4 electoral votes and there is 3% leftover votes that do not qualify for an electoral vote.
Another candidate gets 45% of the vote in this state. That qualifies for 6 electoral votes with 4% leftover that does not qualify for an electoral vote.
Unless one other candidate gets all of the remaining 7% of the votes which could only happen if the other candidates got exactly those percentages of the vote with no fractions that leaves three electoral votes. But it could end up with only one or two leftover electoral votes depending on how the percentages turn out and how many candidates are in the race and getting enough votes to reach a whole number in the percentage of the vote in that state.
If there is one leftover electoral vote it would go the the candidate with the highest amount of leftover votes. If two, the two highest candidates, etc.
This way even a candidate that got 6% of the vote could get an electoral vote if the other candidates had a lower leftover percentage.
This would also in a state with three electoral votes allow a candidate that got 20-32% of the vote in that state to get one of the electoral votes to bring the awarding of electoral votes in that state more in line with the votes cast in that state.
While this is not easy it is also not too hard. And sometimes being as fair and equal as possible is hard- but that is not an excuse to not try or not do it.
As for the NPV being better for third parties I just don’t see it. That just means a third party candidate has to win the national popular vote to get electoral votes from participating states instead of just having to win the state under the status quo or getting electoral votes just by getting the percentage to earn an electoral vote in a state with proportional distribution.
Rank Choice Voting is also not the answer. In most cases it allows the voters to rank their choices when they vote, but is in reality Instant Run-off Voting when it comes to counting the votes.
The problem with instant run-off voting is that it eliminates candidates as each round progresses. This may force citizens to validate with their vote candidates they do not find suitable for office as the candidates they do find suitable are eliminated in order to have their votes counted in all the rounds.
They are forced to choose lesser evil voting or not having their vote counted in the total to achieve a majority in any round where all the candidates they voted for have been eliminated.
This means the majority is not achieved from all the votes cast in the general election, it is achieved from only those voters that voted for the remaining candidates in any round. It is clearly not a majority of all the voters.
A candidate could be the second choice for many voters that have another candidate as their first choice (even a majority of all voters when added to the voters having that candidate as a first choice), but if that candidate is eliminated in the first round then those citizens don’t get their second choice when their first choice is eliminated.
Only rank choice voting that does not eliminate candidates in the counting is true rank choice voting.
If no candidate gets a majority in the general election, all candidates move to the second round.
The first round votes are added to the second choice of each voter that makes a second choice. If one candidate achieves a majority they are elected.
It is possible that more than one candidate could achieve a majority in this or subsequent rounds and the one with the higher majority would be elected.
If no candidate gets a second round majority it continues with the same principle for each subsequent round.
If no candidate reaches a majority in any round and there are no more round to go through then the candidate with the highest plurality gets elected.