What if electoral votes were awarded proportionally?

[DPKdebator]

I think it would make sense to proportionally distribute the votes based on how many CDs each state has, then giving the two senator EVs to the winner of the vote overall.

[DPKdebator]

I'm pretty sure Clinton would win in this scenario. What killed her was her narrow losses in a bunch of big states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina), not the fact that North Dakotans count more than Californians.

However, this proposal isn't happening. There's no constitutional way to do this on a federal level without an amendment, and no legislature would agree to do this on a state level because it would be unilateral disarmament.

Remember that this would mean Republicans would get electoral votes in MA and CA too. It's not like Clinton won 90% of the statewide vote in either of them.

[DPKdebator]

How would you handle Rhode Island with 4 EV?  The clear victor at 55% has "about half" of the popular vote.  Who gets the 4th EV?

Exactly. How do the five states that have only 4 electoral college votes split them? Not just Rhode Island, but Maine, New Hampshire, Idaho, and Hawaii. Wouldn't ME and NH always split the four EVs evenly, giving two to both candidates? At what threshold does a state that has only 4 EVs decide to split them 3-1 instead of 2-2?

The seven states that have just 3 EVs will always split them 2-1 in favor of whoever wins. No drama there. The states that have 5 EVs will very likely always split them 3-2 in favor of whoever wins.

This kind of system does not make any sense to me. The system would only be relevant in the largest states. So I prefer a NPV.

If the Rep.-Senator divide that I suggested was used, New Hampshire would be 3-1 (1-1 for vote proportion, 2 for Clinton since she won statewide) and Vermont would be 3-0 (1 for vote proportion, 2 for Clinton since she won statewide).