Harris Vs Trump 2024 US Presidential election - read the warning in the OP posted 18/09/24

There are two different issues which are often conflated. First, the issue that the States are voting with different weights, and then the issue of how they are voting. The population problem can in theory be solved by the second issue without touching the EC and requires no constitutional amendments.

It's President of the United States, a collective noun, not President of the United States singular noun. The idea of the nation being 'run' from D.C. is in effect just under 100 years old (Courtesy of FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court resulting in the Commerce Clause ruling), it was previously more a co-ordinating body between the states and dealt with international affairs (and the federal budget reflected that). The EC weighting system was a compromise to reflect that though the equal status States are voting, some states have more importance than others, much as the bicameral congress is configured that way (There's a reason why the EC votes are basically one per congressman including senators). As mentioned in the intellectual discussion above between Ancalapailldorcha and Combat14, there is history in Europe to achieve the same thing. It used to be weighted voting by nation in the European Council until about ten years ago yesterday, now it's "Qualified majority voting" in which majorities must be obtained both in terms of overall represented population as well as in nations voting regardless of population. Similar result: Germany, France and Poland cannot run roughshod over Lithuania, Ireland Malta and Denmark, for example.

The other question is the distribution of those EC votes. One method proposed is the interstate voting compact, which suffers the problem of guaranteeing your states' votes to a party it may not have voted to give the votes to, the other is district (split) voting. There is no requirement in the US Constitution that all EC votes be allocated to a single candidate. Two brave States, Nebraska and Maine, split their votes. It meant that Obama could get a vote out of Red Nebraska and Trump could get one out of Blue Maine, which thus meant that in theory even if the State was all but guaranteed to go one way or the other, there would still be some incentive for candidates from both parties to pay at least some attention to them, and the 'minority' voters of the State would feel represented. It's a win-win for the two small states, as the State itself keeps its 'disproportionate-compared-to-California's-population' weight in the EC, whilst keeping itself relevant with a happy population. In theory, this sort of thing could both represent the sub-state political demographics of the population whilst keeping the EC itself happy as a going concern.

The problem is that in reality, I don't see it happening. If California (which has lost an EC vote this time around due to relative population loss) distributed its EC vote on the same basis as Maine or Nebraska, instead of an automatic 54 EC votes for Harris, California would vote 42 Harris, 12 Trump (Assuming the districts go the same party as their current representives). Texas (Increasing two due to relative population increase), instead of 40 for Trump, would go 28 Trump and 12 Harris. If distributed purely on a 'percentage of the vote in 2020' basis, California would go 36 Harris, 18 Trump, Texas would have go 22 Trump, 18 Harris.

Now, imagine you're the leadership of the California Democratic Party or the Texas Republican Party. You would like your party's presidential candidate to win. If you change the system to be more 'representative', you are in effect just handing your opposition's party's presidential candidate a dozen EC votes if you go the District method, or 18 votes if you go by proportion of your electorate. 12 is more than half any of the current swing states have available, and 18 is more EC votes than any of the swing states that the two candidates are fighting over except Pennsylvania's 19.

How do you think your proposal to split your states' votes for some stupid idealistic concept like "representation" will go over? The people not currently being represented at the EC level aren't voting for you anyway, so there's no harm coming from that quarter. But the Party sure as hell won't be happy that you're helping the opposition candidate and your position as a senior party member will be torpedoed. Good luck getting the party nomination for President next cycle.