Well, if nothing else, I seem to be able to provoke a flood of comments and disputes. Let me expand on one of the several things Jerry Fresia said, the idea of circumventing the Electoral College without a Constitutional amendment that would be nearly impossible to pull off. The idea, for those of you not familiar with it, is this: One by one, state legislatures pass a law instructing their Electors to vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of whether that candidate has won the popular vote in that state, these laws to take effect only when enough states have signed on to yield a majority in the Electoral College. This is completely consonant with the Constitution. Since the Electoral College has 538 votes, a group of states having in total one half plus one, or 270 Electoral votes, must join the effort for the system to be implemented. Remarkably, it is already the case, as Jerry notes, that states having a total of 165 Electoral votes have passed such laws, leaving only 105 to go.
As an anarchist who believes that all state authority is illegitimate, I take a transactional view of these matters. Since the political forces I favor currently command a popular majority nation-wide [thank you, California], and seeing as how demographic trends promise to only increase that majority, I am all in with this idea. Note that the Democratic candidate has won the popular majority in six out of the last seven presidential elections. Such a system would, of course, totally alter the pattern and structure of campaigning, since under it, running up the vote in California or New York would be quite as effective as fighting for wins in closely divided states. Candidates would go where their popular votes were, not where the Electoral votes are.
As for at-large slates of Congressional candidates, I have mixed feelings about that reform. On the one hand, it would make it possible for minority parties to gain Congressional representation. On the other hand, it would eliminate the current direct relationship between a constituent and his or her representative. I would be interested in hearing what folks think about the idea.