The legacy of winner takes all for a State’s Presidential Electoral votes is problematic. It disenfranchises voters that do not represent the majority in their state. There can be impacts beyond the Presidential vote by filtering down the line for more local elections.
This invalidates our one-person one-vote ideal.
This has slowly started to change, in two states, electoral votes are NOT ‘winner-take-all’. “The candidate winning the popular vote normally receives all of that state’s votes. Maine and Nebraska have adapted a different approach. Using the ‘congressional district method’, these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote.”
A better approach, is in its purest form, the Electoral votes could be prorated by popular vote in the State, then it would be truly be one-person one-vote.
For example 10 Million votes, that go 60% to 40% for Party 1 and 2, instead of say for example 10 Electoral votes for Party 1. The Electoral votes would be split 6 and 4 for Party 1 and 2. Therefore 4 Million voters in this scenario would have their Presidential election voice heard,
The problem impacts both Republicans and Democrats, and impacts a large percentage of voters.
A BIG positive side effect is, candidates then could visit more States, since every State can ensure some Electoral Votes, versus the current scenario where candidates only go to States that are safely in their camp, or in “play” for the winner take all election.
We could make this happen, if the PttP Referendum amendment were in place.