48 states operate on a 'winner-take-all' system for their presidential electors, 2 use the proportional, district-based scheme. Neither system is ''right'', it's what the states, severally, have decided to do, as is their right under the Constitution.
Sure, the district-based scheme would favour the 'Pubbies (duh!), but if this proposal is unsatisfactory to the citizens of California, all they need do is vote it down.
Given that California seems to have a preponderance of 'Rats among the electorate, I'd have a VERY hard time believing that the electorate will approve this ballot measure. Heck, even if they do, you absolutely KNOW that the Calbanian legislature and/or the Ninth Circus (which, Constitutionally, has utterly no jurisdiction upon this question...which won't stop them for a NY taxicab minute) will find some pretext by which to block its enforcement.
In short, this is possibly the ultimate non-story story. Ain't gonna happen. Might as well write about an invasion of Oxnard by the Squilorish (nasty outer-space buggers, dontchaknow).
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The Democrats would still retain a big advantage of about 35-20, so 'favor' the Republican's is not exactly right. Instead it would allow for a Republican voice to be heard, one which has been silent for too many years.
In general I favor the electoral college, it makes sense for the smaller states. But with California's population being so large, it also makes sense to change the system. Otherwise the Democrats start off every Presidential election up 55-0.