Why talk about amending the Constitution when all you really have to do is repeal a law?

Great idea, except you cannot get that through the Senate because 26 smaller states would block it.

Better to work on the National Popular Vote Compact. It’s at 196 electoral votes out of the necessary 270, with pending legislation in states adding an additional 90 electoral votes.

The Act established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census, it does not impact the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is used for Presidential elections; that is in the Constitution.

@Tropical_Willie But if we apportioned representatives on a one man/one vote basis (i.e., every rep in Congress resenting the same number of people) and increasing the number of representatives, the number of electors would increase.

What will eventually happen is we will have another Constitutional Convention, and when that happens they can change anything, even if mandated for only one part.
For example, if it is formed to handle immigration, they can still change or remove the Second Amendment.

States are free to allocate their electors however they want. They could, for example, allocate their electors in proportion to the votes that a candidate receives. Several states have passed laws saying that, if states with a majority of the electoral college go along, they will give all their electors to the candidate with the largest nationwide popular vote. At that point, the winning candidate would be the one with the one who wins the popular vote, regardless of how the other states allocate their electors.

Bu would you repeal what is against the Constitution.
You might want to get rid of Gun Rights—but that is your God-given right, to defend yourself.
Until you know what is negotiable and what isn’t you can do nothing.