Well, I’m hardly unaware of it, having written about the tie problem a few times before. My solution within the current system for ties is for states to “winner takes all” their electoral votes if the winner has a margin of 1%. If it’s less than 1%, then pro-rate the votes based on what fraction of 1% the margin is. In a super-near tie the votes are then evenly split. This avoids frauds and even avoids long battles because the most you can win with a giant battle is one electoral vote, perhaps 2 at most if you can change the total by thousands.

Such an algorithm can also be applied to a national popular vote system, if we should want it. The compact can agree to allocate its electors in any way it wishes, including an algorithm like the above, though that would mean possibly giving the White House to the popular vote loser.

Of course, using popular vote reduces the chance of a tie or slim margin somewhat. Now there are 51 chances for a near-tie, though tiny states are not worth manipulating in most cases.

The college does make it easier to conduct your fraud, I think, in that you can concentrate it in just one very swingable state. I think that’s easier to do than doing it nationally, though more detectable by some measures. Voting procedures are set state by state.

The “super close” 2000 election was still a margin of over 500,000 voters. That’s a lot of votes to change with vote fraud. The larger your make your conspiracy, the more likely it is to be found.

Now I expect your idea of having an actual electoral college is unlikely to ever get traction. The interesting thing about this proposed compact is that it is getting traction. The public currently says, in surveys, it wants rid of the college.