If the United States were to switch to direct PV presidential election...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Option 1: Simple FPTP, majority or not.

Option 2: Runoff vote if no candidate wins a majority.

Option 3: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)

[Vosem]

Option 3 is the best of these, but really the best would be to preserve the Electoral College and use that mechanism instead of holding a second election if there's no clear winner.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's another reason, beside popular vote issue, I don't like electoral college: candidates are effectivelly ignoring half of states, because of "safe/likely" status.

The campaign would have to be truly nationwide.

[Del Tachi]

If we HAD to?

Option 2. 

[Nichlemn]

I like IRV. I don't really like second rounds, they seem like a waste of time and money when you can simulate them via IRV.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Option 3 is the best of these, but really the best would be to preserve the Electoral College and use that mechanism instead of holding a second election if there's no clear winner.

You mean generally go by nationwide PV but tabulate EVs if there's no majority, or if the PV margin is within, say, 1%, or something of that kind? That's a really interesting idea.

I think I'd still prefer IRV, though.

[Figueira]

IRV.

The only way this can realistically happen is through the NPVIC though, so I don't think there's really any option besides FPTP, sadly.

[Pericles]

Option 3 is the best, but option 1 is better than the current system too.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

the german model (runoffs where candidates can freely decide whether to drop out or continue / win 50%+1 in the first round to avoid a runoff or a simple plurality in the second round)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If we still want to trust the people as a whole with picking their president, the jungle primary system is probably the best way to do it.

[The Other Castro]

What if we had IRV, but on individual state levels and kept the Electoral College?

[Pericles]

What if we had IRV, but on individual state levels and kept the Electoral College?

Australia has that with their parliamentary FPP system, and it means that candidates can still win while losing the popular vote(in 1998 John Howard won despite getting less votes than Labor, same happened in 1990) and as only a few seats would be competitive it would still focus the campaign only on swing states and not the nation at large. It would be a minor improvement but not solve the underlying problems of the Electoral College.

[JustinTimeCuber]

If we HAD to?

Option 2. 

I find it funny how anyone from Mississippi could think they're benefited by the electoral college.

[Del Tachi]

If we HAD to?

Option 2. 

I find it funny how anyone from Mississippi could think they're benefited by the electoral college.

One of the major arguments against the EC is that it gives undue influence to smaller states because every state starts out with a "floor" of 3 electoral votes.

I find it funny that you think people form their opinions of the electoral college based on how much it personally "benefits" them.

[The Other Castro]

For practicality and efficiency, it might be a good idea to keep a framework of the Electoral College. A nationwide recount of the popular vote if it's really close would be mayhem. A recount in one state alone under current rules can be chaos, as seen in 2000, so just imagine that amplified by 50. At the same time, it's hard to find much worse electoral systems than first past the post, so a reform of the way individual states award their votes is necessary as well.

Maybe it could start with IRV by individual states, but then the electoral votes by state were awarded proportionally based on the results between the two remaining candidates (statewide, not by district).