This is a ridiculous scheme. We should stick with the current system.
And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this? It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.
So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme. People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days. They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they? How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election. Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population. But I guess that that makes sense to you. It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states." It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance. Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period. Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states. They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state. Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state.
And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all. How would that be better?
