There has been some skuttlebutt, amongst conservatives from some swing states, to award electoral college votes, one to the winner of each district. Not even the more restrained awarding of them in equal relation to the popular vote outcome. This could possibly lead to the winner of a state's popular vote getting about one third of the electoral college votes, as they would have in Pennsylvania this year. I doubt the obnoxious and disliked losers would actually do it, although it's now apparent that absolutely nothing is out of the question.
The funny thing is that minus the electoral college system as is, the republicans almost surely would not have had a presidential winner the last 6 cycles. So naturally they contemplate adjusting it in a manner that would be even more capable of producing a winner from an unpopular party with unpopular and proven detrimental policies.
The electoral trumped popular one time, or it well could have been 2 Clinton, 2 Gore, and 2 Obama. And if that had happened it would be absolutely certain that we would not be in the Godforsaken mess we are in today. The electoral college gave us Dubya, the neocon marionette, and we will be paying dearly for that the next decade or more no matter who wins or what they do. The republicans are now in the process of proving that all they need is a gerrymandered produced House majority to fuck things up royally.
The only rational adjustment that should be considered at this point by the entire country is whatever party loses the presidential popular vote, also loses two of their incumbent congressional seats from every state. Two of their incumbents that won.