It has been tried before but the United States Supreme Court has held it be unconstitutional in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 US 533 (1964) in which Chief Justice Warren wrote:<quoted text>
I said no such thing RETARD!
I have NEVER said that legal Blacks and Hispanics, or Gays and Women's vote should not be counted.
I know how the system is set up now and it is unfair.
Obama micro-targeted the populated area's alone in state's like Ohio and won the State.
A candidate should not be able to neglect the rural areas within a State and win the State.
This is not fair, as the population centers contain most all of the Blacks, Hispanics, and illegal aliens who are mostly all DemocRATS allowed to vote by crooked DemocRATS.
Ohio is almost all red, save for the population centers that were blue.
Ohio's electoral votes should have been split between the candidates.
If a State is mostly red, it should be giving most of electoral votes to the Republicans.
We need a new Electoral system.
We must create districts within a State that can award a States current electoral votes to the person that wins that district.
All States need to be of equal importance.
Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Id. at 562