I have to admit that America has one of the most screwed up and apparently deliberately difficult systems of voting ever devised. The only part of your election process that makes a whit of sense to anyone outside the US is the bit about having elections on the same damned day each time - only the chosen day is the dumb thing about it.
Here in Australia, we
have a universal compulsory vote - in theory, everyone eligible to do so turns out to vote.
always vote on a Saturday, and it's always a big community event - cake stalls, sausage sizzles (barbecued sausage on bread with some garnishing), jumble sales - and proceeds always go to the venue (usually a church or a school) hosting the polling station.
don't have to tolerate more than about 6 weeks of campaigning. The Prime Minister (or state premier) calls an election scheduled for a Saturday about 6 weeks away that doesn't clash with other major events, advises the Governor General (or Governor in the case of the states), and parliament moves into caretaker mode. Then members of parliament go out and try to convince us to let them keep gorging on the public gravy train for another 3 years.
don't have anything as crazily non-representative as the Electoral College (and if we did, it would distribute its votes proportionally to how the electorate votes - kinda like Maine does with their Electoral College votes).
*instead have preferential voting. If four candidates run in a district, you number each candidate according to the order you would prefer to have them. If Candidate A was your first preference, he gets your vote. Once all the votes are counted, if he's the leading candidate, but doesn't have better than 50% of the vote, the votes for the lower placed candidates are allocated by either your or the party's preference to the remaining candidates. This continues until ultimately until all preferences are distributed to the top two candidates, and means that votes for the less successful candidates are not wasted in splitting the vote against one candidate or another.
To lend the case of preferential voting to the US Presidential Election, we'll assume a four horse race between Clinton, Trump, Johnson and Stein (I know there were others, but they were the big four). A voter would number each name according to who they prefer, and in order. If they only number one candidate, the preferences are distributed according to how the candidate prefers. So let's say I vote for, in order of preference, Clinton, Johnson, Stein, Trump. Once the first round of counting is done, Trump has 46%, Clinton has 42%, Johnson has 8% and Stein has 4%. Votes for Stein and Johnson are allocated to Clinton and Trump according to how the voter (or the candidate in the event of a "just vote #1") prefers. This round of counting sees the votes for Stein and Johnson continue to count according to voter preference. If the Stein and Johnson 2nd preferences all choose Clinton, Clinton gets the preference votes and over the line in this theoretical example, and then Trump promptly challenges the result on the grounds that the vote is rigged, but the challenge is denied because the process is overseen by a neutral government body, and if a court agrees there's a problem, the electorate in question goes back to vote at a later date.