11. Reform the Electoral College? Part 2

.... In our previous posting we discussed reforming the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote. In most respects, our founding father would have considered that a very bad idea. However, there is one possible adjustment that comes closer to their purpose, which they might have supported.
.

.... Let's use the systems in Nebraska and Maine as a starting point. Both states make a distinction between the electoral votes that represent their Senators (the state as an entity) and their Representatives (their populous). When a presidential candidate carries their state, he is awarded the two 'state' votes immediately; however, the rest of the votes are awarded on the basis of which districts were carried. One must admit that this is closer to what our founders envisioned, but it still contains a flaw:
.
.... In both examples, the states are relatively small and in practice their votes have never been divided. The overall winner of the state has always carried each district as well, so the winner has always gathered every electoral vote. But in the larger, more populous states this could become more of an issue. Especially, it could lead to abuse from the statehouse itself in the form of gerrymandering. If that unfair practice could pack just one or two districts in a single state, and thereby switch just one or two of its electoral votes to a favored party, it could make the vital, unfair difference for us all.

.... The solution would be in returning to that state's population before those district lines were drawn, to regard its population as a whole. In other words, there would be new, 'virtual' districts for purposes of the election. As an example, in a state with twelve electoral votes, Candidate A won 61% of the popular vote, and Candidate B won 37%, with the rest going to other, minor candidates. Here is how the division would take place:.

.... Candidate A carried the state and would immediately receive the two electoral votes that represent that state. He would also receive 6 of the ten 'popular' votes -- in this case, his percentage has been rounded to the nearest whole number, which is what elections do. Therefore, he would receive a total of 8 electoral votes from that state.
.
.... Candidate B would receive the other 4 'popular' votes, again, rounded to the nearest whole number. This way, the minorities in each state would still have some voice, and would not be subject to the tyranny of the majority at their state level.