I apologize if you have addressed this elsewhere, but I worry that the expedient of using a proportional electoral college creates an even more fragile system. In the various revised electoral vote scenarios presented in your and other spreadsheets in this thread, we see that a handful of electors could routinely swing even a not-very-close election like the one we just lived through. Can you imagine the lobbying efforts to convince two or three “faithless electors” to switch sides in a race like 2016 conducted under proportional elector rules? For this to work wouldn’t the court need to specify exacting conditions for elector voting (essentially prohibiting elector discretion)? How deep would he court have to penetrate into a state’s ability and process to define an elector’s rights and responsibilities, method of election, etc.? Could an election determined by a single faithless elector switching sides be overturned if it were later determined that the elector had been bribed? Who could bring that suit? What if only the state had standing and declined to pursue the case because it liked the improperly-obtained result?
I agree completely that proportional allocation of electors would be better than WTA, but only because it approximates the true standard we should apply, which is who actually got the most votes. I also recognize that pursuing an equal protection case to achieve proportional allocation is intended as an expedient rather than as a complete solution to the larger problem (I signed the petition).
But I would hate for people who believe deeply in the implementation of “one person one vote” at the presidential level to stop at abandoning WTA, which preserves the small state advantage and has the potential to create a more fragile and corrupt system.
In the scheme of things, a constitutional amendment requiring direct popular election of the President would be easy to draft, easy to explain, easy to justify and easy to implement after adoption. The process of getting it adopted would likely be arduous, but as with most such amendment campaigns, the ability to rely on the simple and obvious fairness of the argument would be a huge, and I believe ultimately decisive advantage.