Plurality take all elections and the 2016 elections

I found this spreadsheet online 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true

I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I notice that there are 13 states considered swing states. Only one of these states, Iowa, shows a clear majority of the votes for either candidate. Otherwise, no one has a majority. Whoever won those states, won with a plurality. In the non-swing states, very few show the winner with only a plurality. Those are: New Mexico, Utah, Virginia,

In fact, in those states where no one has a majority, we don't know who the majority of the voters would have voted for in a race that only included Clinton and Trump.

This is a problem with plurality take all elections. You can get a winner, who is not supported by the a majority of the voters.

When I lived in France, in 1976, I was impressed that they had two rounds of voting. After the first round, no one had a majority. Then they had a runoff election between the two lead candidates, so they could determine who would really get the majority.

I have a long standing concern about this, because Hitler was elected with a plurality. A majority of Germans never voted for him.

Glad to see Maine adopting ranked voting

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/maine-makes-it-harder-elect-trump-likes-so-will-rest-us-follow-suit-1593600?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous&yptr=yahoo

This is one way of dealing with a situation where no candidate has a majority.