Electors should be proportionate also.....the winner takes all is undemocratic.Nope. Not unless you can put something in its place that works better at distributing the power equally twixt rural and city. The country cannot really survive without that mechanism.
Not that there don't need to be some changes, for sure. Committed electors should have no..zero..latitude on who they vote for. The vote should be a rubber stamp--nothing more.
Devoid of politicking...like that's going to happen~
My state does what states did when we were first formed...they never changed when other states chose to make it Winner takes all. My state distributes our state electors allotted based proportionately on how we the people vote in each representative and elector voting district.
So basically if a state with 100 electors (there is no state with 100, this is used as an example)
If 50% voted one candidate, and 40% of citizens voted for another candidate, and 10% voted for an independent candidate.
The candidate who got 50% of the vote, got 50 state electors, the candidate who got 40% of the vote got 40 state electors, and the candidate who got 10% of the citizen's vote got 10 of the state electors....
(there is a little bit more to it)