Why Bush v. Gore might mean that Clinton should be president: The EP argument against winner-take-al

[Stargleamer]

27. I could not gleam from this article how rounding can properly divide a state's EC vote count

in this system in which winner-take-all has been abolished. For example, Wyoming (one of my least favorite states) went for Trump by 70 to 22 or something like that. They have 3 EV's. So they divide these 3 as 2 for Trump one for Clinton. So what happens if they had been 85% for Trump and 15% for Clinton. Then I guess Clinton would get 0 EVs. But if she got 1 vote over 16.5 % she would get 1 of Wyoming's 3 EVs. In this system also if Trump gets 50.1% to Clinton's 49.9% in WY, (not likely to happen I know, but for the sake of argument) Trump would also get 2 EV's to Clinton's one. At least I think this is the way it would work. That might be okay, because things might balance out in other states.

But in this system, is it still theoretically possible though for the winner of the popular vote to still lose the election? The way rounding would occur makes me think that it still might be possible. If that's the case, then it still seems it would be better than what we have now, but it still would not be as good as a direct election decided just by popular vote.