A good site to look at the various possibilities of Electoral College reform is:
http://gning.org/electoral.htmlAn excerpt from the site which I liked:
PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL VOTE. This simply means that each state's electoral votes are divided in proportion to how the state's voters split, instead of allowing a winner-take-all system. One or two states already do this. We would have to be careful in exactly how we write the mathematical rule for how vote proportions are rounded off to whole electoral votes. A variation would be to calculate each individual electoral vote according to the congressional district it represents, with the two senatorial votes being determined by the overall vote of the state. This would leave the smallest states winner-take-all.
Advantages: this is one of the few reforms listed here that might not require a constitutional amendment. It could be mandated by Congress (though probably not if states protested strongly), or implemented one state at a time. It would mean that the electoral college vote, within the limitations of roundoff error due to having only 538 votes total, would much more accurately reflect the popular mandate coming from the states. It would preserve -- some would say restore -- the weighting of votes in favor of small states, which as noted above is probably very hard to eliminate, so we might as well consider that a good thing. It would weaken the hold of the two party system: third parties would still tend to be seen only as spoilers, but their chances of breaking out of that role would be better.
Disadvantages: if a significant third party effort is made, this reform would greatly increase the likelihood of the decision being made by the House of Representatives. When that happens, your vote ceases to count. And the variant of calculating votes by congressional district would make small states be winner-take-all while larger ones are proportional.
