Any changes would mean an amendment which seldom happens.

states may appropriate their votes in any way they see fit.

If a state decides, on a state level, that they would personally like to give their votes to the popular vote winner, it can happen.

www.nationalpopularvote.com

Article II, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Constitution doesn't say that the state must appoint electors based on who won that state. It says that they shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"... which can certainly include a rule to cast the state's electoral votes for whoever won the popular vote nationwide.

On edit - This doesn't address the OP's odd notion of changing how many votes each can cast (which would require an amendment)... but it does address whether or not you can get around the issue of popular vote winners losing the election.

of how the states hand out their electoral votes; I'm addressing the fact that states can't change how many electoral votes they have to hand out, as that is detailed in the Constitution.

I have been posting all day about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact .

It does not require a constitutional amendment, it simply require a "compact" of states that comprise the majority of electoral votes.

It relegates the electoral college to a symbolic status, while allowing the election of the POTUS through a direct democratic process

i applaud your creativity nevertheless. i'd be happy for any improvement.

It would be just as hard as abolishing the EC while still keeping it as a pointless anachronism. So why?

The number of electors per state are defined in the Constitution.

One elector can have multiple votes, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct.

There's no way to give electors more than one vote without amending the constitution

It doesn't however require an amendment to change a state's votes from going to the winner of the state to going to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

It would, however, still be a large hurdle to overcome, since states representing 270+ EVs would have to change their own laws to accommodate... and that's a tough sell.

Article 1 Section 10 prevents it based upon the way the states are going about it. The are calling it a compact, which must be approved by Congress. In the current political climate, and the current state of the EC, this will not past constitutional muster.

Each state passes a law that only impacts itself.

It is very likely under VA vs. TN it would not require congressional approval as it doesn't reduce the power of the federal government.

Still even if SCOTUS ruled that it required congressional approval IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Congress has approved multiple interstate compacts in the past. It just requires an up or down vote.

So if what you say is right then Clinton is the President. All of CA electors will vote a quadrillion times each and she will will 55 quadrillion and change to Trumps 290 votes. Oh wait but Texas electors could each vote two quadrillion times each and beat her ...

The Constitution is just saying the state legislature can decide on who the electors for the state are by any means they want (state popular vote, 1 elector per district, the state legislature voting, appointed by governor, coin flip, arm wrestling match, or in the case of the national popular vote compact the winner of the national popular vote).

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

It's not a default statement of attachment of one vote.

That makes no sense.

one state vote a billion times. I am sure that will work out great.

Since the 12th amendment
1 elector = 1 vote (for president)
1 elector = 1 vote (for vice president)

Prior to that it was still 2 votes per elector just even more of a cluster fuck than the current system.

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;

The Constitution details how states are assigned electoral votes, and it also provides the formula for determining the total number of electoral votes. To change that would take a Constitutional amendment, and if we can't get a Constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the EC, we won't be able to get one to do this.

number of electoral votes a state may have, except the DC.

The electors VOTE each one votes once and the candidate with more than a majority (270 at current time) is the President.

VA has 13 electoral votes thus it will send 13 electors to the electoral college.

A legislative change would need to be made, but it's easier to sell to people that their vote is worth more than it currently is.

If you attend a rally of ten thousand people, their electoral vote is only about one vote for the entire rally, at best.

Tell them if we pass this bill then there vote is worth ten times more than it is now and it's a winning argument.

Neither the state legislature nor the Congress hold the power to grant variable numbers of votes to electors. One person, one vote.

That's not an "uphill battle" it's a fantasy.

through legislative maneuvering.

They don't have the power to apportion them in any way but population and they don't have the power to undo one person one vote. The number of electors is fixed to the number of senators and representatives... they can change that number, but not give an elector the ability to cast more than one vote.

Oh man you found it the secret loophole. Just get one of Clinton's electors to vote a billion times and she will become President.

Come on man. You are grasping at straws. In every single election since the 12th amendment each elector from each state has voted exactly once for the President (except in a few instances where as a protest they didn't vote at all).

district. If they had ten thousand voters in their district, then they get ten votes. I am also sure states would limit how those votes are cast, either winner take all, or divided proportionally - that would take a constitutional amendment.

for states to decide how to cast their votes - it's up to each state individually.

divided proportionally, that would take a constitutional amendment to take said power away from the states.

You said the states would limit how they divide their votes, and that it would take a Constitutional amendment to do so.

There isn't anything short of an amendment that can set such a cap.

Why doesn't one of Clinton's electors just vote a billion times?
Why didn't one of Romney's electors just vote a billion times?
Why didn't one of McCain's electors just vote a billion times?
Why didn't one of Kerry's electors just vote a billion times?
Why didn't one of Gore's electors just vote a billion times?

Literally in the history of the US since 12th amendment no elector has ever voted more than once. You think they could and nobody did? Really man? Really?