Hillary Clinton is the fifth Presidential Candidate in U.S. history to win the Popular Vote and still lose the election. How do we make the popular vote actually matter, without losing the balance/proportion afforded to small states by the Electoral College?
- Siphon off exactly 15% of every state's electoral votes.
Create a new Elector from the 15%, which comes to 80.7 votes.
Whoever wins the Popular Vote is awarded those 80.7 votes, making it the largest Elector in the country — the Golden Snitch of the Presidential Election, if you will.
The remaining number of votes in the Electoral College, not including the Popular Vote Elector, is 457.3. If the candidates tie, and get an equal number of state Electoral Votes, that would put them each at a little over 228 votes.
The Popular Vote will now be the tiebreaker that decides the Presidential Election.
Let's use what just happened in this country as a practice run. Accounting for states not yet tallied (assuming that the current numbers hold), Donald Trump will win 306 Electoral Votes and Hillary Clinton will win 232. Subtract 15% from those totals, and you have Trump winning 260.1 Electoral Votes and Hillary winning 197.2 votes. Add in the Popular Vote Elector, and Hillary wins 277.9 votes, and wins the Presidency.
This way, we ensure that small states still have a voice, The Electoral College remains, the proportions don't change, AND the Popular Vote actually matters.
(By the way: If this system had been in place in 2000, George W. Bush would have won approximately 231 Electoral Votes. Al Gore would have won 307.)