> That said, currently it seems that any “popular vote” measure that takes away power from small states (like this one, or changing the senate or house) would disadvantage republicans, so it’s probably a nonstarter.
This isn't actually true, for a couple reasons:
1. Small states are already ignored in Presidential elections because most of them are solidly red or blue (see [0] and note how many small states have no visits at all). Pretty much the only small state that swings in elections is New Hampshire, so I suppose New Hampshire loses a bit by transition to a popular vote, but no other state really does. I'm prepared to bite that bullet.
2. Right now there are tons of suburban and rural Republicans in California and New York whose votes essentially don't count at all in the current system, but would in a popular vote.
People who have studied the potential effects of abandoning the Electoral College have found that it doesn't actually provide an unbalanced benefit to either party, though I concede that as long as Republicans think it would hurt Republicans, it won't happen.
[0]: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016
