Why? It is up to the states to determine how they will allocate their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine don’t have a winner-take-all system.
A setup where all of California's electoral votes went to the winner of the popular vote *nationwide* could be said to deny California's voters a proper degree of say over the allotment of the state's electoral votes.Prime example...2004.Bush won the popular vote by several million,correct? Why should all of California's 53 electoral votes have gone to Bush when Kerry won something like 55% of the popular vote in California.