The only change I can stomach is the Maine (I think) option. Win a district get a vote. Win the state get two. At least red areas in blue states would actually get to “vote” for their candidate.
Yes, I am fine with how Maine and Nebraska do it (instead of winner take all for electoral votes for each state it's by Congressional district plus two electoral votes for the winner of the state).
It would help stop this crap where they commit fraud in Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee etc. and win the whole state's electoral slate with that fraud. They want to pull bags and bags of votes from under the table after kicking out the poll watchers for the night, then the damage is limited since they were going to win that congressional district anyway. It would also force candidates to campaign more widely as they would not write off whole states if there were competitive Congressional districts in those states.
And this is a totally constitutional way of doing this (each state can make the choice), unlike the national popular vote compact that the liberals are pushing which is unconstitutional on its face. Of course the liberals will never approve of this for California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, etc. where they currently hold a huge advantage.
Maine and iirc Nebraska use an acceptable system constitution wise, and actually would be a move toward more representative voting.
‘Win a district get a vote. Win the state get two. At least red areas in blue states would actually get to “vote” for their candidate.’
i concur ; IF there had to be a change.
This suggestion was, I believe, put forth by Sen. Mundt years ago.