>>It is possible for Romney to still become the President of the United States. If “Faithless Electors” (electors pledged to vote for a specific person) vote for someone else, the election could be overturned. So if a sufficient number of electors pledged for President Obama vote for Mr. Romney instead, the election results would be overturned.
>>
>>Why don’t we have the Supreme Court intervene? Surely they would pick the “proper president”? After all, what do the voters know?
>
>I think all the electoral votes should be handled like Nebraska and Maine! :) (Congressional District Method and not "winner takes all.")

Absolutely. Very large portions of the population are effectively disenfranchised in the Electoral College. Obama won Ohio by about 100,000 votes and got all 18 electoral votes. This is true of the winner of Ohio in almost every national election. California and NY are reliably 60% Dem but that gives them a spot of 84 in every election. Texas delivers 38 to the GOP and the 40% that vote for the Dems have no voice.

Completely unnecessary but the allocation is a matter decided at the state level and no state party machine that can deliver that kind of payloadis going to vote for something more fair. Only solution would be a constitutional amendment to make the distribution proportional by either congressional district or popular vote standardized for the nation.