system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: There is no benefit to having the electoral college. Either allow a percentage based sharing of electors, or have the presidential election decided by popular vote

For those who don't know/don't understand how it works, the U.S. uses a system of electors to elect the president. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes which aren't proportionate to their population (less populated states are overrepresented, more populous states are under represented) and its a winner take all system. If you were running for president and won 50.000001% of New York's popular vote, then you would receive 100% of their electoral votes. This is messed up for several reasons, mainly that the minority parties people's votes don't count in reliably blue/red states. I see two ways of fixing this.

1. Get rid of the winner take all system and replace it with a percentage system. If a democrat won California by 64%, then the republican candidate should get the other 36% of the vote. This would make reliably blue/red states competitive again, and stop nominees from spending 99% of their time and money in just a few battle ground states. It would also help to make the most popular candidate the winning candidate. OR
2. Have a simple popular vote system. In the first solution mentioned, one of the issues would be the over/under representation of states based on the population of the state. I am personally of the opinion that the person who the majority of Americans want to be president, should be president.
gpt
Benefit is a matter of perspective. The system was designed to benefit low pop states, and it does.

Your proposal would harm large pop states. It would harm the political calculus of Democrats especially. With 3 EC states like Wyoming their vote splitting is largely inconsequential, but if the 55 California EC votes were to split that harms the advantage Democrats have. The same to Texas and the GOP.