This idea will weaken the smaller states power and legislative aspirations considerably. The President of the United States would only need to cater to the larger states for a re-election campaign. Also, objectives of a sitting President and favour would only cater to larger states. Since Washington State really is somewhere in the middle then the direction of the voters for political purposes would narrowly count. Middle low population states needs such as Alaska’s need to driling in Anware would be relegated to the back row. Only if the resource comes to the national front line would Alaska be recognized or if a representative of the state was re-elected too numberous times to count on one hand then that state might be recognized due to the offsetting power of the legislator and not due to the power of the President. Middle low population states would become political dustbowls and the wind would scatter to the large population states.
The founding fathers knew the correctness of state division and the political affect which a popular vote would create. Also, political characteristics of individual states would have to mask or scew the political landscape of the expected President of incumbent President for things to get done or not to get done in a particular state. Politics would work both ways if a state had a wide swing. For neutral swingers perhaps no favours would be earned during a campaign and afterwards. Only the Congressional and Senatorial politicians would have the ultimate power in neutral states. Two year middle terms could swing dramatically due to the perceived continuance or non-continuance of the current or incumbent President.
A new array and is the difference really that much.
One state could require a complete recount of all voters in all states.
I think this one is too close to call.