I’m not sure that’s true. It would incentivize even more gerrymandering. As an example there is Ohio in 2010. At the congressional level the Republican’s took 53.67% of the vote but took 13 of the 18 (72.22%) of the congressional seats. So using the by-district method would have awarded 15 of 20 electoral votes even though the voting would have led to 10-10 or 11-9 in the EC under proportional division. (had that been a presidential year but it shows the problem).
Looking at the 2012 Ohio map it’s even plainer. There are fewer congressional district do to the census and reapportionment, fine.
But in this case, the Republican candidates took 50.96% of the votes and won 12 of 16 seats. So a case where proportionally it would lead to a 8-8 EV breakdown ends up being 14-4.
It’s not. In 2012, it would have given the presidency to the candidate who lost the popular vote by almost 4%.
Yeah I actually did know that they apportion 1 EV per district and the 2 at large to the overall winner - I’m not as ignorant as you think I am AND I know what proportional means.
I apportioned each state’s EVs according to the percentage of the vote each candidate got.
Yeah, I first heard of the congressional district thing in the 90s sometime. I thought it sounded brilliant - at least compared to the electoral college. But it assumes a non-manipulated playing field. If the districts are cracked and packed then the entire system is rigged in such a way as to be worthless at both the district and national level.