You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. ANY presidential election in the USA is winner takes all, regardless of EC. There's a winner and a non winner.
This is in contrast with Parliament based governments where MPs are selected by the people and, depending on outcomes, can form coalition government. So in a Parliament type country you get 40% and the two other guys get 25 and 35 and you think jolly I won, unless they form a coalition. Even that is essentially one person one vote and NPV.
Well you must have meant something very different than I understood when you wrote "But antiquated schemes like the EC make it much harder to determine exactly who won what..."
I assumed you meant that it is difficult to understand who won a Presidential election under the EC, perhaps when one candidate won more popular votes yet fewer EC votes. I assumed you meant there is confusion about who actually won under such a situation. My response was that, no, there is no ambiguity whatsoever, because the rules are clearly that the person who get at least 270 EC votes is the winner. Popular vote is nowhere in the rules, thus there is nothing to be confused about if one pays attention to what counts and what doesn't.
The screwy part with EC and with Parliamentary systems is how electors or MPs are chosen. And, from my decades of voting, neither system passes my smell test for the exact reason.
To keep the EC, I would love to see proportional representation for electors based on state popular vote, state wide. Not by gerrymandered congressional district. And, appointment of electors, again, by state population, not the current.
Where specifically is there gerrymandering in the EC system? Electors are chosen under the rules established by each state, and the Electors are directed by law how to vote. Currently it is almost universally a winner-take-all for the Electors, so they are required to vote how the majority of their state's voters did.
While you would love to see proportional EC voting, what you are loving is a watering down of the balances built into the system. You've ignored my question before so I'll ask it again. Do you oppose the way Congress is constructed (as well as all the State level legislatures) where there is a balance between population (House of Reps) and States (Senate)?
In my birth country we know the system we use is not representative of the will of the people. The 40% vs 35% margin often results in staggering difference in MP numbers, largely due to EC style machinations. But we know it's rigged, because the party that wins blatantly changes the system via elections law rewriting to ensure their continued success.
In the USA, it's written in the Constitution of course, but it's no surprise that one party, the one that has benefited twice in sixteen years from the EC supports it the most.
That's really some twisted logic to say that one party has benefited by the EC.
Tell me exactly precisely and with what level of confidence we can conclude that absent the EC or with a purely proportional EC Hillary would have won the 2016 election. Explain to me your logic that the candidates would not have campaigned any differently than they did, and how voters would have shown up or stayed home exactly the same. Would Trump supporters in California, Oregon, Hawaii, NY, NJ, CT, and DC have stayed home under a NPV the way they did with the EC? Would Dems in Idaho have stayed home under NPV?
You are claiming that the NPV in previous Presidential elections was un-influenced by the EC system. Which is complete hogwash.