They can't take away the two EVs for the senate seats without an amendment.

If so, we should just get one to abolish the E.C..

So why would states like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas agree with that?

if both candidates campaigned to win the popular vote instead of the electoral vote (most likely Clinton would have won). Campaigning only happens in a small number of states and the rest of the country is neglected. Now if the EC were done away with small states and smaller cities would be neglected. I live in a smaller area of the US and my area would get almost no attention without the EC. Places of high importance in the EC are not going to vote to get rid of it.

and this is why I don't think that the EC should be abolished altogether. But I think that it should be tweaked to be more proportionally to the population, as members of the house are apportioned.

RI, MA & CT don't want TX getting more power in an election and MT, SD & AK don't want CA getting more power in an election.

be changed. that's why i think that blue states really have no choice but to secede.

and have more representatives in the House.

Otherwise, each state will have one vote and then CA and TX would complain that they should have more weight than the smaller ones.

Or just switch to popular votes - one person one vote - and you know that the red states would object.

and the bigger states aren't going to get more representatives then they already have.

States would earn EVs by the number of people who voted. 1000 votes would earn 1 EV.

This may help solve the problem of disenfranchising voters if governors know that their state will have very little influence over a national election thus undermining their own federal access to people within government.