Is there not a better way to elect a President?

Tweet

The Electoral College method of electing the President of the United States has long struck me as being utterly bizarre. It can lead - as we saw in 2016 - to the majority of electors not getting the candidate they wanted as the winner. The really odd thing, surely, is that this is an election for the President of the whole country, so why is that not the overriding factor in electing him or her? The fairest way of making the decision would be every vote to be treated equally and for the State in which the elector lives to have absolutely no bearing on the issue. As things stand, an elector in a large swing state such as Florida has more influence than one in, say, Montana. How can this be right? Another way of making the election fairer would be for no vote counting to be done until every elector had had a chance to vote, which means that the citizens of Hawaii would not know the result before they had had a chance to vote. These reforms would bring the United States into line with other Western democracies. France, for example, elects its President (in a two-ballot process) on a one person, one vote basis. When the UK sent members to the European Parliament its votes (cast on a Thursday) were not counted until the polls closed across Europe, most countries of which vote on a Sunday. What do you think?