Uh, I'm afraid there is something there you don't understand, actually. Very few elections require a majority. A plurality is all that is generally required, and that goes for the allocation of electoral votes in the state presidential contests. Due to third parties, the winners of presidential elections rarely get a majority of the popular vote. Just look at the stats through history.

So in a three candidate race, if the vote splits 40 - 30 - 30%, the one with 40% wins, and the winner is one that 60%, a large majority *rejected*.

A few general elections do require an absolute majority, the Louisana governor's race being one. And many primary elections (which are a party function, technically) require an absolute majority. That requires runoffs. (You could have system where you rank choices, allowing a runoff to be done from a single ballot).

Oh, and the presidential election does require an absolute majority. Of Electoral votes. If the EC fails to achieve a majority, it is thrown to the House.

And, for those who get their underoos in a bunch about "democratic processes" and "fairness" and all that stuff, take a look at Arrow's Theorem and the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.

These theorems prove that no election system can be "completely fair". You pick a series of fairly straightfoward criteria that sound fair which just about everyone would agree on, and find that they are inconsistent. No election system can meet them because it is a logical impossibility.

I love those because it's a stark example of warm and fuzzy emotion being shown to be logically invalid.

-Richard