Critics....also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.
Pardon me, but fucking seriously? There is a very real possibility that your vote will not count if you live in one these states that has enacted the law. Such a system would also ensure that politicians would only campaign in the most populated areas, focusing on large cities.
But there's more: Because the legislation is being pushed state-by-state, we may end up with a Constitutional crisis on our hands. While the Constitution allows states to determine the method of choosing electors, it also guarantees Equal Protection. In other words, my vote can't count more than yours does. Say you live in Kansas, and Candidate "R" gets 65% of the vote in your state. But nationally, Candidate "D" takes 51% nationally. The 65% of the people that voted for Candidate "R" now have seen their votes essentially switched! The Equal Protection argument comes into play when one realizes that living in Pennsylvania, I don't have this problem. Whomever wins a majority in my state gets the electors, regardless of how other states vote.
Of course, states are not even required to hold elections at all to appoint electors, so it's doubtful a solid Equal Protection argument could be made.
What are your thoughts?