I first made this proposal 4 years ago. The following has been slightly updated due to the current situation.

The Situation

Since we are in a year with a presidential election, the subject of eliminating the Electoral College has become prominent again. While this may be psychologically satisfying to many, it is extremely unlikely to ever gain enough traction to change the US Constitution, the requirements for an amendment are such that it is unlikely that ¾ of the States would vote to lose power for the advantage of the largest States.

One of the main arguments used by proponents of elimination is that the Electoral College votes do not match up with the popular vote, especially in close elections. May I propose a solution (with two variants) that does not require an amendment?

Proposal

The Constitution requires that each State select electors equal in number to their representation in the two houses of Congress. It does not require that these all be for the same candidate. If you really want the results of the Electoral College vote to closely approximate the results of the popular vote, then change your State’s law (not the Constitution) to allow the splitting of your State’s electors based on the popular vote in your State. Two States already allow this.

Variations

I see two easy variations on how to accomplish this. The first being a simple proportional system (for example, your State has 10 electoral votes, each candidate reaching 1 vote more than 10% receives one elector). The second is to use your existing structure to decide on your congressional offices: i.e., two selected on the overall State vote (winner take all) and the remaining ones based on the winners in each congressional district. For small States (those with 3 electors) the results would be as today, winner take all. I am sure that other inventive people will find further alternatives.

The proportional system has simplicity in its favor. The main disadvantage is that in the event of a recount, the entire State must be recounted unless all parties agree that the “problems” are more localized. The second system has the advantage of matching an existing structure and being more responsive to the varying regional desires. That being said, it would make the drawing of district borders even more divisive.

Either of these alternatives would force presidential candidates to run a more truly national campaign (States could not be written off as either unwinnable or certain wins). Either of these could be implemented one State at a time, there is no need for a national consensus. May I suggest that the largest States lead by example?

Reality

Having said all this, I recognize that this will require a majority in each State’s government to consider the good of the country over the good of their party. In other words, to be statesmen and stateswomen rather than politicians. I am certain that we have some in office, I am much less certain that we have enough.