READ my post #113. It shows a GLARING flaw with the NPV.
The CURRENT problem with the 48 state winner-take-all [except ME and NE] is the TOTAL allocation of electoral votes based on the POPULAR VOTE within a given state. The NPV MERELY eliminates the problem at the STATE level and boosts it to the NATIONAL level by NOT eliminating the TOTAL allocation of electoral votes based on the total NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.
There are two more inherently BETTER methods: Proportionality and Congressional District.
The Proportionality Method awards electoral votes based on the proportion of a given STATE’S popular vote to a particular candidate. A state with a total of 10 electoral votes and a 60%-40% split would award 6-4.
There ARE problems with this such as how do you allocate based on partial percentages [ie: 50.3%]. ALSO, candidates would concentrate on the MOST HEAVILY POPULATED areas of the state. This leaves LESS POPULATED areas out in the cold to some extent.
The FAIREST method is the Congressional District Method [CDM]. Win a District, win the electoral vote allocated to it. The two REMAINING electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the overall popular vote within the state as a “BONUS”.
Using the CDM, a state with 10 electoral votes [8 electoral Districts, 2 votes representing Senate seats] and a 5-3 District split in a election, would then go 7-3.
The CDM puts EACH AND EVERY District on an EQUAL footing and REDUCES the importance of the MOST populated areas within a state. It encourages citizens in a HEAVILY MINORITY party within a state to vote since their canddidate can ACTUALLY WIN their District’s electoral vote.
For example, I live in MD. Obama won it 10-0 in 2008. If NPV had been in effect [MD is a signatory], it STILL would have been 10-0. No matter that Obama ONLY won 5 of the 8 Districts.
If Proportionality had been in effect, Obama woulda won 6-4 [he had about 60% of the vote], and IF CDM had been in effect - he woulda won 7-3.
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson argued that Virginia should switch from its then-existing district system of electing presidential electors to the statewide winner-take-all system because of the political disadvantage suffered by states that divided their electoral votes by districts in a political environment in which other states used the winner-take-all approach:
“while 10. states chuse either by their legislatures or by a general ticket [winner-take-all], it is folly & worse than folly for the other 6. not to do it.” [Spelling and punctuation as per original]
Indeed, the now-prevailing statewide winner-take-all system became entrenched in the political landscape in the 1830s precisely because dividing a state’s electoral votes diminishes the state’s political influence relative to states employing the statewide winner-take-all approach.