Even if it does help Republicans, it is a violation of the principles for which we are supposed to stand. I hate it, too.
First, his proposal is the same as breaking up Kalifornia into principalities, while not doing the same in the rest of the nation. It’s just flat out unconstitutional. Everybody is supposed to be on the same page with the same system. His proposal kills all that. So, I’m against it.
What principle we stand for does it violate? It’s an example of federalism in action. The Constitution does not specify a winner-take-all system for picking slates of electors commited to a party candidate. The several states can pick any system they want for chosing Presidential electors.
It is not unconstitutional in the least. The constitution provides that electors shall be elected in such manner as the respective state legislatures provide, and two states (Maine and Nebraska) already elect presidential electors by congressional district (with the 2 remaining EVs going to the statewide winner). In fact, it would not even be the first time in history in which our most populous state elected presidential electors by congressional district: In 1828, NY elected its 36 electors (comprising 13.8% of electors nationwide, 3.5% higher than California’s current share of the Electoral College) by congressional district, which allowed John Quincy Adams to get 16 of the state’s 36 EVs despite losing statewide by 2.9%. The congressional-district method was also used by Michigan in 1892, allowing Grover Cleveland to win 5 of the state’s 14 EVs despite losing statewide by 4.5%.
"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