But the number of electoral votes is allocated on a mix of 2 (Senators) plus population (House)*. So the population density of cities will still be the major determining factor.
I’d rather see an inverted calculation, where each state gets a large base number, with a smaller weight to population.
* (Simply stated, but analogous)
I still believe that Maine and Nebraska have it right. Two electoral votes to the state winner, then one vote to the winner in each congressional district within that state. This would further force some candidates (and you know who they are) to venture past the population centers of certain states. California, for example, with it's 55 votes, can be had by the winners of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. Never mind the other 2/3 of the state that would be even or slightly red (bright red in some places!)
In fact, had such a voting procedure been in place in 2012, the results would have been Obama 264 (209 CDs, 26 states x 2, plus 3 for DC) and Romney 274 (226 CDs, plus 24 states x 2).
Now THAT result would have made liberal heads explode, eh?