Oceander wrote above:
[[ So the simple solution there is to have electoral votes allocated per the results of the popular vote in each state. That still gives the small states and the rural areas some say in the election, a say that a pure popular election vote would not. ]]
Better solution:
Adapt the system that Maine and Nebraska use, where electoral vote victories are assigned per Congressional district. I believe the two "Senate" electors are assigned to whomever wins the popular vote in the state.
Of course, this must come through a Constitutional amendment, because you're NEVER going to get states like California, New York, Texas and Illinois, etc., to agree to it via their state legislatures.
But I believe enough states -might- agree to it via an Article V convention, so that the "weight" of the most populous states could be over-ridden.
It's worth a try.
But let's say this doesn't happen, that things pretty much stay the way they are now.
The Electoral College used to -help- the Republicans, but it won't continue to do so for very much longer, as the remaining battleground states get closer and closer to "tipping left". Eventually the current system will make it impossible for the Republicans to win.
The great prize is Texas. It will take some time, perhaps twenty more years, but eventually Texas will first turn purple, and then blue. A simple matter of demographics. The illegals may not vote, but all their children born here are automatic citizens, and most of them are eventually going to vote for the democrats.
And once the 'rats have Texas, it's all over for the Pubbies as far as the presidency is concerned.
Which makes it all the more important to get the "proportional-electoral" system set up as soon as possible...
