you could make a strong argument that the 'winner-takes-all' electoral votes in states that have winner-takes-all systems is essentially already doing what the proposal to effectively eliminate the electoral college is doing -- it's saying that individual votes dont count, only the collective whole.

I'm primarily referring to the congressional elections, not presidential. The problem is that bigger parties scoop all the votes for smaller ones.

Would you have multiple presidents? How would you break their roles up? Which one gets the nuclear code or do they all?

Winner takes all refers to the fact that in most states, the winning candidate gets 100% of the electoral college votes. Even though the candidate may have gotten just 50% plus 1 of the votes.

This is the main reason a popular vote winner can still lose.

You could be the 51% winner in most states but lose by nearly 100% in the more populous states and still win. Which is why this keeps happening to Democrats. They win by landslides in NY and CA but then eek out a loss in some of the swing States.

I don't understand how you can have all electors voting for the national popular winner, and also somehow not have first-past-the-post?

"Winner takes all" problem refers to the Congress, not presidential elections.

No, I believe the OP is referring to abolishing the "first past the post" system that the US currently has in place.

You're still choosing one president - it refers to how you award a state's electoral votes.

CA has 55 electoral votes, all of which went to Hillary. If CA removed winner-take-all, Trump would have received 17 electoral votes, Hillary would only receive 34, Gary Johnson would receive 2, and Jill Stein 1.

TX has 36 electoral votes, all of which went to Trump. If TX removed winner-take-all, Trump would only have received 19, Hillary would receive 16, and Gary Johnson 1.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...