Moreover, both of the parties are a product of the election map. If the map changes, it doesn't destroy one of the parties, it changes both of them, to get the balance back. If Republicans started getting 20 of California's delegates, Democrats would change their policies until they were getting those 20 back somewhere else. They'd stop pussyfooting around on climate change so they can save Florida from ending up underwater and put those 29 in the solid blue column, or dump a big jobs program in Ohio and get those, or start paying attention to the plight of the rural poor.
Or the Republicans would realize they could stand to lose some votes they currently have to get, stop being so inconsistent about at the same time claiming to want smaller government while never actually making it smaller, and actually gore somebody's ox.
You need 270 to win. 300 means you gave somebody something you didn't have to. 240 means you didn't give somebody something you did have to.
> If Republicans started getting 20 of California's delegates, Democrats would change their policies until they were getting those 20 back somewhere else.
So what you're saying is they'd change tack to not pay as much attention to California, which is supposedly going to benefit Californians.
But that doesn't matter because the specific individuals who would have to enact is are just as much if not more beholden to their party than to the the people.
I agree with what you said about changing the parties policies though.
If two states with 10 electoral votes each are both currently winner takes all, but one votes green and one votes purple; and if only the green state changes to proportional allocation, you move from a scenario where both parties got 10 votes each to a scenario where the green state went 6/4 for green and the purple state is still all 10 votes purple, basically kneecapping the green party.