The talk of getting rid of the Electoral College happens every four years. Replacing it with a straight popular vote would give too much power to heavily populated cities, doing away with much of the republican nature of the process.
Still, i think it's easy to see the current formulation has deep flaws when only a few states can combine to form the needed 270 (Hey, for the sake of diversity, be grateful that California and Texas aren't likely to see eye to eye anytime soon), or 'the math' requires the entire campaign to be fought within a narrow geographical region, giving a few voters an inordinate amount of power.
My solution is simple:
Whichever candidate wins a Congressional district, he will be awarded the corresponding Electoral delegate. The candidate who wins the state-wide plurality will receive the other two delegates.
This would do away with the Winner-Take-All approach that creates a sizable advantage for the barest of pluralities within larger states, leading to some better results all around.
- A Democrat voter in Texas and a GOP voter in California will find his vote mattering for change.
- It spreads the game out, requiring a candidate to speak to voters in Washington, Idaho and Boston.
-Chicago's dead will be less likely to play a role in an outcome when all they will do is add to the total of the district they were machined in. This eliminates ballot stuffing, accusations of cheating, and Florida recounts.
- More folks would be inclined to bother voting know that their vote has a better chance of mattering. (Imagine where the citizens of Illinois and Oklahoma were as equally involved in their government as those in Ohio.)
-It may lead to better government all around if minority party affiliations were able to increase their involvement, remaining as a steady (or at least steadier) threat to the status quo.