[Political Junkie Too]

I believe the original intent was that each House District have one Electoral College vote, based upon how the people in the district voted in a Presidential election.

I think, in practice, that this is still the case.

I'd urge people to investigate how their own states vet candidates for the Electoral College. In my state, people apply to their party to be an Elector. The party reviews all the applications and selects a slate, which is forwarded to the campaign for final approval.

I don't know if the parties pack their slate with Electors from a few urban areas or if they strive to choose electors from across all districts. I suspect it comes down to a few things: 1) the Constitutional requirement that an Elector not hold any other office, 2) contribution history to the party, 3) participation as delegates in state events, and 4) willingness to pay all costs related to being an Elector.

-PJ

[Yulee]

I think, in practice, that this is still the case.
*************
Currently in most states, the candidate, with the most votes, receives all electoral votes (winner take all).

If allocated according to the winner in each Congressional District, the candidate with the majority of Congressional Districts won would receive the majority of the electoral votes. The remaining electoral votes would go to the opposing candidate.

For example in California there would have been electoral votes for Trump, not all 55 going to Hillary.

Looking across the nation Trump would have gotten more electoral votes than allocated by winner take all.

We probably would have had a few more Republican Presidents than in the past, if electoral votes were allocated according to the vote in each Congressional District.