This debate was interesting and maddening, but none of it even began to touch on the elephant in the room: winner take all electoral votes. Sure, there's a population disparity, but the real source of almost all of the disparity in the Electoral College is the fact that electoral votes are winner take all.
Also, when The_Doctor said that the Electoral College did a decent job of reflecting the national will, by what metric was he measuring? I see a lot of people defend the popular vote by saying that it usually matches the popular vote. Why would that even matter unless the popular vote were a good standard to use, in which case, why not just use it?
Yup, this is the real issue; electoral votes should be allocated in a proportional basis at the state level. Though that means that more elections would go to the House. In fact 2016 would have gone to the house; the results would be:
Trump 267
Clinton 265
Johnson 3
Stein 1
McMullin 1
Similarly doing a quick count for 2000 it would also go to the house:
Bush 261
Gore 263
Nader 12
