>>Electors by congressional district would IMO be a disaster. Remember, those are reapportioned every ten (1) years based on the census. Game, set & match to California and each state's (ruling at the time of each census) political party.
>
>I don't see why it would be a disaster. In the smaller states, it's likely nothing would change. (Certainly, that's true for the smallest states that have only one congressional district.) In the large states, where the Congressional delegation is usually divided, it provides finer control. Instead of California's electors all being allocated to the same candidate, each would represent a smaller, more reasonably sized unit (though, often, still more people that an elector from a small state).
>
>Redistricting is already highly political and the ruling party does its best to maximize its seats in the state legislature and Congress. I don't think that would change.
>
>FWIW, I'm likely to lose my Congressional district - PA 13 - in the reapportionment that's coming up. It's become an extremely expensive seat to win in the last 10 years. Add that to the fact that our Democratic incumbent just won reelection and the Legislature has a Republican majority, and I feel fairly confident we'll get split up, with my Democratic-majority township and some others thrown into a city district and the more staunch Republican towns added to a Republican district.
>
>Tamar

Tamar,

Well, I guess I just think your approach would politicize elections far too much. That, IMO, should be avoided and the current system works quite well it seems.