100 % of the reason I rolled shadow priest . EVEN IF THEY NERF IT TO THE GROUND , but still let me look this fucking cool ? Wouldn ' t care . It ' s so . Fucking . Cool . <| sep |> I tried the opposite model where by you eliminate all or nothing distribution in favor of a proportionally distributed ECV ' s . So , just as an example Alabama has 9 electoral votes . That means you ' d need 11 . 11 percent of the popular vote for one electoral . Trump had 62 . 89 of the popular vote there . He would get 5 ECV ' s MOD 7 . 34 % that is 55 . 55 % gets him 5 ECV ' s with an additional 7 . 3 remaining . Clinton had 34 . 55 so she ' d get 3 ECV ' s with 1 . 22 % remaining . Johnson received only 2 . 11 % and thus would not get any ECV ' s in this state . There is still one ECV remaining since we rounded down the distribution which Trump would win 7 . 341 . 22 , 2 . 11 . Repeat across the country and you end up with this . owma 0 qgqo 9 phb 1 tUEhJ 1 ou 6 CLAbHOJkLvaBfs 8 edit ? uspsharing Warning Minor errors possible and horrendously ugly formula ' s unavoidable . I ' m not a statistician , I just did what I could to make the model work ~~ Trump 280 , Clinton 247 , Gary Johnson with McMillians Utah votes 11 . ~~ EDIT There was a rounding error . The correct I think figures are Trump 268 , Clinton 256 , and Gary Johnson with McMillians Utah votes 14 The distribution does negate MOST of the skewing caused by the All or Nothing system but doesn ' t reflect the popular vote because the EC distribution per state is still off . A more accurate model would require us to combine the redistribution of ECV ' s across the country and eliminating the all or nothing ECV grab .