I am wondering if anyone has done the math to see if allocating Electoral College votes by Congressional district (like Nebraska and Maine do now) would have affected the 2012 election or open up possibilities for future elections.
Since Republicans have a majority of state legislatures, which can decide how to allocate the votes, I am thinking there might be some drumbeats to make such a change, in lieu of scrapping the electoral college altogether. But, if legislators in large blue states demur (or vice versa, if the "new" math favored a Democrat), this idea would not fly.
Making such a change would be one way for a swath of voters in red and blue states to have an opportunity to make their votes count.
There is also the idea of having states award all of their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote; an option that could gain more traction but, would greatly lessen the impact of votes in smaller states who otherwise have some benefit from the existing system. Since it will only take enough states that total 270 votes to agree to this proposal, it is probably the most likely way to bypass the negative impacts of the electoral college. Otherwise, it would take a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it or make other types of changes.
One negative byproduct of such a new system, which puts in play all 50 states, is that the cost of campaigning would skyrocket. We would all be inudated with negative ads instead of just the unfortunate people in swing states, and instead of the new election cycle starting two years out, it would have to become a 24/7 presidential campaign.
-- Nick Sloane, Glendale Heights