The reform is simply this: apportion electoral votes by congressional district, not by the current “winner-take-all” method. In the present system, If Donald Trump or Kamala Harris wins a state by one vote, they win all of that state’s electoral votes. This is true even if the ‘losing’ candidate carries one or more congressional districts in the state. So, up to 50% of a state’s voters can effectively be disenfranchised. It’s hard to think of any system that is more un-democratic.
Thankfully, we have a real-time example of the Congressional District Method in the great states of Maine (begun in 1972) and Nebraska (begun in 1992). These states allocate two electoral votes to the state’s popular vote winner, and one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each of their congressional districts (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This has resulted in several “split” vote allocations over the years. In fact, there are scenarios where those single district electoral votes could decide the 2024 election for either Trump or Harris.
Earlier this year, the Nebraska legislature threatened to revert to the ‘winner-take-all’ format, to insure a Republican candidate’s win in the deep-red state. Quickly, Maine shot back that if Nebraska changed their system, they would go back to the old system as well—likely giving all of their state’s electoral votes to a Democratic candidate.
All of this could be resolved by making the Congressional District Method nationwide—either with the Nebraska/Maine allocation scheme or a simpler proportional allocation scheme (that would avoid the problem of gerrymandering). Anything would be better than the current system—which robs millions of Americans of a true voice in their presidential elections.