I would like to see it changed.
I'm in favor of implementing RANGE VOTING in place of our current First-Past-the-Post system. Under Range Voting, each citizen rates each candidate on a scale from 0-9. (This scale could be different, possible 0-10 or even 0-99). The higher the rating, the more the voter desires that candidate to win. All votes are then averaged and the candidate with the highest average is declared the winner.
More info: rangevoting.org/ .... bolson.org/voting/essay.html
There are many benefits to switching to this system. Using one measure, the Bayesian Regrets of Election Method, Range Voting has the best opportunity in providing the best winner (the candidate that provides the least amount of regret from the voters). (rangevoting.org/BayRegsFig.html)
Range Voting's lesser cousin is Approval Voting, where citizens vote either yay or nay on each candidate. This would be the outcome if under Range Voting everyone voted their favorable candidates a 9 (or the highest value) and their unfavorable candidates a 0. Although not as good as Range Voting, Approval Voting would be much easier to implement.
This system would eliminate the electoral college. Which I think is a good thing. There seems to be a lot of "wasted votes" with our current system. Either because they know their candidate won't have a chance (third parties/under 5% of the vote) or they live in a state that is either a dark red or blue and they have the opposite opinion. A common opposition here is that a few highly populated states could decide the election then. But we have to notice that states will no long give out 100% of the votes to a single candidate. Votes will be spread out across the candidates.