My friend (let's call him J.K., because that's his name) suggested that rounds could be scored in two halves.
I.e. using the current 10-pt-must, you award one score for the first 2.5 minutes of the round, and another score for the next 2.5m. Thus you have 6 half rounds scored in a 3 round fight, and your maximum score awarded is 60, instead of 30. For 5 round fights, you have a max of 100.
This would have the following main effects:
1) More periods scored -> less chance of draws, in general. You'd typically have to get 10-9 x 3, and 9-10 x 3; or some rarer combination of 10-10, 10-8 and 10-9. Also, less chance of errors causing "unfair" or controversial results, because an error in one round gets diluted across 6 instead of 3.
2) Less pressure for judges to avoid 10-10 and 10-8, since the likelihood of the use of those scores causing a draw is reduced - hence, a better implementation of 10-pt-must instead of "10-9 must" as currently observed and propagated by the Rob Hinds of the world.
But even if refs continued to do 10-9s for everything from an even round to a shellacking, a fighter that dominated a round would wind up 2 full points ahead for that round, 20-18; and a more even round where one was winning the first half then losing the second half would be a 20-20 round. This would avoid the issue of the 1st round being 10-9 and the 2nd round being possibly 9-10 resulting in a draw (across those two rounds) when really, one fighter was significantly better.
I feel this solution is simple - doesn't change the scoring method at all; doesn't change the number of rounds or breaks; and doesn't add the complication of half points. And for the reasons above, it should be effective in pushing for the correct outcomes.