How does proportional appropriation of electors reflect an election where one candidate gets 48% and the other gets 49%? Or worse, what happens when we have results like Michigan with a .2% difference?
Also, in this year’s election, no candidate won 50%+1 of the vote. That would lead a split in the Electoral College where no candidate receives 270 votes. Someone did an analysis of this and it showed Clinton receiving 262 votes, Trump a little less, and a few votes going to third party candidates.
In this eventuality, the election is determined by the absurd non-representation of American voters that is the GOP gerrymandered House of Representatives. (I provided an example of this taxation without representation here, as Republicans receiving less than half the votes are awarded 67% of the House seats in six swing states).
The problem with our system is two fold. Small states dominate the selection of the candidate by their placement in the primary calendar. Then, a handful of swing states determine the outcome of the general election, where they become the targets for every dirty trick in the business in order to win.
Small states still have their power in the Senate, which can completely halt governance as we’ve seen over the last seven years of Obama’s presidency.
I think the Great Compromise was and is, an archiac and obsolete part of our democracy. I’ll leave it to a couple of the original Founders to state the obvious:
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were two of the leaders of the proportional representation group. Madison argued that a conspiracy of large states against the small states was unrealistic as the large states were so different from each other. Hamilton argued that the states were artificial entities made up of individuals, and accused small state representatives of wanting power, not liberty.