"The elected official is acceptable to the most possible voters" is the only "better" outcome.
If a "bad person" gets elected because that's what the people wanted, that's not the election processes's fault.
Democracy is incompatible with the idea of protecting voters from their own bad decisions.
That's the beauty of democracy. Not that the people have "the power." That meaningless. The people always have the power in every political system from anarchy to totalitarianism. In democracy the people have the responsibility.
Right now the American people don't elect the President. Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina do.
Right now if you're a Republican living in California or a Democrat living in Texas you are not getting a vote in any functional level and that's just wrong. And it's just as wrong for the people who I disagree with their vote as it is for the people I do.
I don't want a system that games us into making the "right" decision. I want a system where we have to live with our bad decisions when we make them.
I think that's a rather distasteful common but unspoken subtext in a lot of discussions about voting, the vague idea that if we mess with the system too much a bunch of "wrong voters" are gonna tip the scales and I simply cannot groove on that wavelength.
5 times in this country's history a President has been elected with a minority popular vote because of the winner take all, win states not people methodology of the Electoral College.
And even in the other 53 elections the winning candidate was still playing the same game, just by pure chance the will of the people and the will of the electors happened to coincide. That's why I don't care (as much in this context) that Hillary won the popular vote and Trump lost it. They were both playing the same game and trying to win in the same fashion. The popular vote has always been a stake-less, meaningless popularity poll in America. Hillary was counting electoral votes same as Trump was.