The whole thing is intended to be ironic. Today, it makes sense to most people to have the president elected by a simple majority vote. The American electoral system doesn't work that way. Each state (plus the District of Columbia) has a certain number of electors. When we vote, we don't really vote for the president; we vote for electors who are pledged to a candidate's party. Some states don't even require that an elector vote for the person they are pledge to, and there have been a number of instances in American history where an elector voted for someone else (often as a protest against the system). None of those switches has changed the outcome of the vote, however.
Four years ago, the state of Florida had an extremely simple set of instruction for voting for president, but many elderly people complained that the ballot was confusing. The electronic voting seemed to present a number of anomalies and raised many questions. There was also the problem of "hanging chads" on the paper ballots. It finally had to go to the Supreme Court, which ruled in a way that favored Bush. Since Florida was the deciding state, this all has had many repercussions and has been endlessly debated.
The political cartoonist is using that background to lobby for revising the Constitution to allow a direct vote for president.
BTW, that probably won't happen any time soon. The system was originally drawn up at the insistence of the "small states" not to be bullied by the "big states". The tension still exists, so don't expect the legislators from Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, etc. to vote to give up what they perceive as a necessary check to the influence of New York, California, etc. Changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of Congress, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the States.