The current allocation of electors (1 per seat in both House and Senate) gives very small states with only 1 or 2 Congresscritters a substantial benefit as a percentage of the population. Wyoming gets three electors for about 600,000 people while California gets 56 electors for about 40,000,000 people. The latter is 1 elector per 714,000 people while Wyoming gets 1 elector per 200,000 people, more than 3.5 to 1 ratio between the two states. There are a number of ways this could be fixed (although all require a Constitutional amendment). First, require that all states allocate electors from their assigned number based on some proportional allocation. An alternative would be to allocate electors based on which districts in a state vote for which candidate (in most cases, this would be similar to a proportional allocation and would be much better than winner take all).

Another option would be to assign "Senate electors" not based on the number of Senators (which is always 2 for every state) but based on population. It could still be a limited number, for instance 1 to 5 electors based on population of the state, so California would get 3 more (as the largest state), while Wyoming would get 1 less. California would not have 59 electors for 40,000,000 or about 1 per 677,000 while Wyoming would now get 2 (instead of 3) electors and therefore 1 per 300,000 voters. Its not a HUGE change but it would probably reduce the number of weird election results like we have had in the last three elections.

All three options seem like a move in the right direction, though each seems to make the system more proportional to popular vote. Why keep the intermediary at all?

Eliminating the EC would create the potential for a simple, but massive, majority in about 10 states could be able to "take over" the federal government. That's because we have HUGE disparities between state population sizes. Having the EC in place provides at least some form of "check/balance" against that potential. That's the primary reason the EC still has a function in modern times, IMHO. If the states were much more balanced in terms of population, it wouldn't be necessary, but with California having 40,000,000 people and Wyoming having 600,000 (and that sort of disparity is found in many other states as well) we could still have a "tyranny of the majority" in just a few states.

I don't understand the comment. What does electoral college have to do with the representation compromise (which of course is moot)? Wasn't the electoral college seen as away to compromise on property ownership as a qualification for voting? States have allowed the electoral college to be perverted but the idea of circuit breaker is worthwhile. I like Nebraska and Maine's method of going by district. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

And guess whose idea it was? Thanks for NOTHING, Hamilton!

Perhaps this will help: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins

This can be done without throwing out the baby, Nebraska and Maine appoint electors by district.

What's the baby we're throwing out here? Why not an all-in popular vote?

If we had an effective electoral college I'd hope they'd look at putting a convicted felon in office on a close vote but probably not. A national direct election is sliding down the slope - the next question is why have state or local government? I'm a believer in pushing government down as close to the constituent so that it is responsive. The Federal executive as exercised today is far beyond the scope of where it should be.

That would just flip the "ignoring". Now instead of ignoring big states like California where the vote is "predetermined" (more or less), candidates would ignore the small states almost completely, because it would always be more cost effectiive to campaign in the largest states. Win CA, FL, NY, TX and IL by 75% and you have a virtual insurmountable lead. Forget all the small states. The EC properly formed can do a lot to prevent that.