A number of people have suggested we abolish the Electoral College, but it ain't going nowhere, as too many small states find it advantageous. There's also the idea of states committing their electors to whichever candidate gets the most votes nationally. This is legal since states can determine how to choose their electors--there's no right, for instance, to vote for President. However, I think there's too much resistance to this idea for it to catch fire (and the states that support this seem to be doing it for partisan reasons, which will be troublesome to the states that haven't), and until a majority of electoral votes goes for it, it's a no-go.
There's another reform some are talking about now--which can be acted on by each state individually--where electors are appointed by districts, rather than winner-take-all. Two states already follow this rule, Maine and Nebraska. But now it's being considered, or at least talked about, in states like Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. However, this is such a blatant attempt by Republicans to get electoral votes from states they've been losing that it will not succeed.
But is it a good idea? Not for these states alone (which would probably help Republicans in the short run but may hurt them later), but for all states? One of the big complaints about the EC is it reduces a national election to a collection of swing states, with huge states like New York, Texas and California all but ignored. Would making each district a separate prize make the candidates go to places they've been avoiding?
Perhaps, but aren't there plenty of districts, even in swing states, that lean strong Dem or Repub? In fact, don't both parties work to make safe districts? And wouldn't this lead to even more gerrymandering?
Yeah, I guess it would. Forget this post. It's a dumb idea.