And other states could decide to that if they wanted to.

especially because there may not be enough time
to file a complaint in the courts.

If there was a complaint to be filed it would have been filed long ago.

Red states have no incentive to change. The attempts are to get Blue states to change.

or Wisconsin?

The keep trying out here in CA. Saying it is fair. Fuck them and the mother fucking horse they road in on. I am already under represented based upon the rule for Senators, and they want us to be fair and split the electoral vote, no fucking way. It is all or nothing.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

One thing to note though is that a truly red state (one which will presumably vote Republican for President) would only help the Democrat by moving to proportional distribution of electoral college votes. It is only of concern to us in states that would vote for the Dem for President, but have a Repub governor, legislature, or both. I am not sure how many states there are that fit this mold, though there are at least a few.

It would have been narrow, but Romney would've won in 2012 274-264.

That's with just the overall popular vote winner in each congressional district.

If it went by majority - Romney's win would've been bigger (286 electoral votes).

It's probably too late for the 2016 election - but it's possible that a state like Michigan could turn around and divide its electoral votes based on proportional representation along congressional lines.

I don't think it'll happen, as it kinda died down a few months after Obama's reelection - but another loss in 2016 could set it up again.

It could happen at any time up to election day, or whatever date would be determined by each state's laws. It is entirely up to the individual states how they allocate their electoral votes.

There are laws that have to be made at the state level. With most legislatures out until the next session, which will be the one before the next election, it's increasingly unlikely.

But there is nothing in the US Constitution that would prevent a state from deciding how to allocate its electoral vote. Theoretically, I suppose a state could hold a binding referendum on Election Day to determine its allocation. It is up to each state to decide, by its own procedures, how it votes.

In a word -- YES
Not only can they change the the rules from Winner-take-all, they can totally ignore the voters.

The National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact requires that once it is implemented --
all member states MUST pledge their electors to the party of the nationwide popular vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Imagine dark blue Massachusetts having to support the Republican candidate.
Imagine dark red Texas having to support the Democratic candidate.

I recall the Florida legislature considering sending the Republican slate of electors regardless of the recount results.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/29/news/mn-58820

Interesting little factoid, huh?

this applies to the winner of the national vote,
not the voting results in each state, if I understand
that correctly.

But the point is that a party can win 99% of the statewide vote, lose the nationwide popular vote and that state will be required to disregard the 99% and support the nationwide vote winner.

Even without the Nation Popular Vote project, state legislatures can disregard the results of the state vote.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012- and there are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in presidential elections in each state. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to candidates.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Existing federal law requires that presidential electors be appointed on a single designated day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

An attempt by a governor and legislature to change the “rules of the game” between Election Day in November and the mid-December meeting of the Electoral College would violate the Impairments Clause and be invalid because it would violate existing federal law.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) grants Congress the power to choose the time for appointing presidential electors:

“The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

Existing federal law (section 1 of title 3 of United States Code) specifies that presidential electors may only be appointed on one specific day in every four-year period, namely the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

The legislature cannot appoint presidential electors after Election Day (i.e., after seeing the election results in its own state or other states).

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of Title 3, United States Code:

When results of the votes cast (the choice made), up to and including on Election Day (by the day prescribed by law), are known, the electors are reported.

The U.S. Constitution requires the Electoral College to meet on the same day throughout the U.S. (mid-December). This sets a final deadline for vote counts from all states. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court has interpreted the federal "safe harbor" statute to mean that the deadline for the state to finalize their vote count is 6 days before the meeting of the Electoral College.

With both the current system and National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets on the day set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas&quot in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

The legislature cannot, after Election Day, award electors other than by using the state laws that were in place on Election Day.

This is to protect both Massachusetts and Texas from just that.

at which time they meet in their state capital to cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President.

more .....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29

But that's just my guess.

goes under states' rights.

There's not even a Constitutional requirement to run an election.

But, think of Texas. While the state is red, there are very population dense blue areas (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, etc). The state legislature would rather all votes go to a republican than dividing them to the democratic candidate.

I know Michigan was considering something like this, but I never heard what happened with it.