Award electoral votes in proportion to how each voter in that state votes. This still allows voters in smaller states to protect their interest, and it makes every state something the candidate needs to fight for and allows each state to have it issues heard.
This way the conservative votes in blues states and the liberal votes in red states will now count.
It is an interesting concept. But here are my concerns.
What do yo you do with 2020 Georgia for example: There are 16 electoral votes; Biden got 49.5% and Trump got 49.3%. Jo Jorgensen of the libertarian party got 1.2%. Does she get an electoral vote? Also...in Washington State in 2016, Clinton got 54.4% of the popular vote, Trump got 38.2, Gary Johnson got 4.9%, Jill Stein got 1.7%.
If your goal is to give enfranchisement to the people...unless Johnson and Stein and Jorgensen are getting electoral votes...you're not doing it. Essentially my question is this: At what percentage threshold does someone get an electoral vote? And, more importantly, at what electoral threshold are you comfortable with one of the major party candidates getting a electoral vote that should have went to a third party?
Second concern: When you have 10 electoral votes and one candidate gets 60% of the popular vote and the other candidate gets 40%, that is easy; 6 electoral votes for one, and 4 electoral votes for the other. What happens if you have 11 electoral votes and they break 60/40? How do you divide up the 11th electoral college vote? Are we going to get into awarding half votes or quarter votes?
One thing I do like about your plan is that candidates just can't write off the states they won't win. Trump got more votes in California in 2020 than he did in many states that he won...over 6 million votes. The issue though is that when you say the small states keep their clout...do they? In California in 2020, Biden got 63.5% of the vote, Trump got 34.3%. Jorgensen got 1.1%. So, if I understand your plan, the 55 electoral votes would be awarded as follows: Biden would get 35 electoral votes and Trump would get 20 (I presume that you would say Jorgensen gets zilch). That 20 votes is more than Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Oklahoma combined. So whatever clout those states had..it's gone.
The vote totals are also questionable for small states vs. big states: Biden got 11M votes. Trump got 6M. So their total is 17M. As it stands (from above), the 11M equals 35 electoral college votes and the 6M equals 20 electoral college votes. If Trump would have campaigned there and had gotten, lets say, a modest 400,000 more votes (I'm rounding off a bit), he would have gotten another electoral college vote. And Biden would have lost one. Another 1.2M votes and that is equal to another state like Alaska or Maine. So I think you'd see less campaigning in the small states that are currently not competitive; not more.
But here's the big problem. The Democrats already do this in their primaries. There are very few winner-take-all states. What it does is empower the extremes. On Super Tuesday in 2008, here is how it broke down:
Clinton won:
AZ, AR, CA, MA, NJ, NM, NY, OK, TN. She won CA, NJ, and NY. Pretty good night for her.
Obama won:
AK, AL, CT, CO, DE, GA, ID, IL, KS, MN, ND, UT. He won IL and a bunch of small states.
The final delegate count? 849-832...OBAMA! How did he come out ahead on the delegate count when she won more states? It was because the states she won, she didn't win by a blow out. Obama blew her away in some places. ID was 15-3...MN 48-24...GA 60-27. Meaning that in the general election, winning a state 50/50 is not as important as it is to win a state 90/10. You'll see dark red and dark blue states become more valuable to candidates because winning Pennsylvania no longer matters because your opponent is going to get almost as many votes as you do. So what type of message do you start using to win the dark red and dark blue states? The most partisan language you can come up with.
So I'm a pass on your plan.