As for me, I support this method because it makes it more likely that the popular vote winner will win.
Not necessarily. There are certain scenarios under which that would be true, but as long as the victory margins are greater in the smaller states than the larger states (as I think they tend to be right now; just look at Bush's %age margin of victory in places like ID or ND compared to Kerry's margin of victory in even NY), PR for the electoral votes would lead to an even greater shift of power towards the smaller states, which could well mean that the popular vote winner is *less* likely to win.
Look at it this way: The current EC gives the smaller states an advantage over where they would be if we had a straight popular vote system (because of the +2 EVs per state from where it would be if EVs were allocated solely on population). However, that effect is *partially* offset by the fact that that victory margin tends to be greater in smaller states than larger states (so there are more "wasted" votes in smaller states). But moving to PR would eliminate that effect. I think someone worked this out for the 2000 election, and showed that under a PR EC system, Bush would have won by more electoral votes than he did in real life, even while losing the popular vote.
