Below the radar, the California State Assembly has hitched on to an intriguing idea.
http://www.latimes.com/...
In brief, they passed a bill and sent it to the Senate a reform to California's electoral vote procedure. If passed there and signed by the Governor, it would begin a process that would forever change the electoral college.
Here's how it would work:
If enough states that would total a majority of the Electoral College approved this measure (and only then), the states that enacted this would cast its votes in total for the candidate who nationally won the most votes (irrespective of whether that candidate won a majority of the popular vote).
In other words, California's electoral votes in 2004 would have gone to George Bush. In 2000, they would have gone for Gore (as they did already). The net result would be that Gore would have been elected under this system.
The key to this is that enough Republican-leaning states do the same thing. Apparently, Republicans in Colorado and Ohio are supporting this, and again, it would take enough states with EVs totalling 270 or more to support this for it to take effect.
I am unsure how to react to this - I don't like tinkering with the Electoral College too readily - the proportionate vote solution either by Congressional district or any other way of allocating is a terrible idea for Democrats, since it would have elected Nixon in 1960 and Ford in 1976. And doing it in just a few states is even worse (unless they were states like Texas or Florida).
But this idea does sound like it would gut the Electoral College. It would seem like if enough states with different leaning went to this, any fluke like 2000 would never happen again, which is ultimately a good thing.
My major concern is what happens if we get a large number of third party candidates, and more end up on the progressive side - it could lead to those on our side getting 60% of the popular vote, but if there were only one strong GOP/conservative running, he/she could win with 35-40% of the vote. This of course could still happen under the current system.
The main point backers in California (almost all of whom in the Assembly were Dems) is that the state and its concerns aren't ignored in the general election. The Republicans who opposed it (get this) said they did't like it because it was not fair to the smaller states (!) as though anyone in those states of either party worry about California being ignored.