>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.

Let me try to defend the idea a bit:

1) First, I would take data from past elections to see how much close we came to matching popular/electoral votes, do a statistical analysis. The method should preserve the clout of small states, while more closely reflecting the popular vote.

2) Note that the current electoral system has a sort of "midpoint" that is seriously off-center. What I mean is that in a non-close election, the current electoral system is greatly magnified compared to the popular vote (not a bad thing). But in a close election, it is a real liability because it becomes highly inaccurate as a reflection of the popular vote, and we are a muddled nation as it is now.

3) The change would probably put Al Gore in the White House, would be my guess, for this election, but I could be wrong - the Republicans did keep the House, and my plan would likely align things a little more closely to the House, would also be my guess. An analysis would be interesting.

4) No matter who does the congressional districting, in time each party would get accustomed to the slight shift, and adapt easily enough, just as they do to the current House system (Republicans are still doing decently well, if I'm not mistaken). Small states would still maintain the exactly the same clout as they have now, as I said.

5) Bear in mind (you are Republican, no?) states like California and NY (which Dems can now take for granted a huge # of electoral votes, would be entirely split up. Repubs would make enormous gains in these states with this method...

In addition to having more accuracy in reflecting the nation's popular voting mood, look at the bright side of point #5 :)