We've all seen a map of the red states and blue states, which illustrates the lopsided nature of where Republican and Democrat voters reside. The following link is much more revealing, which shows the support by congressional district. Now this site was started with the colors reversed and the author says he does not want to go through the hassle of changing it, so red is Democratic and blue is Republican support by congressional district. When you open the site, click on "2000" in the "General by Year" box, then click the button, "cong. dist."
So we see that the entire country is almost completely Republican support except for splotches of Democratic support in major metropolitan areas and a few old traditionally liberal or democratic areas. The map indicates the people closest to the land are more conservative.
Now, the following site explains pretty well the reasoning and the ways of looking at the electoral college.
This site has very interesting information, one being if the 2000 election had been determined by electoral votes by district rather than by state, referred to as CDM (congressional district method), Bush would have won by a larger margin, 285-253 instead of the 271-266 that resulted in winner take all by state (except for 2 states that use CDM). If we were to circumvent the current system whereby most states have winner take all, I think the CDM method makes sense. One of the advantages of this system is that a person's vote has a much higher statistical chance of impacting at least one electoral vote, that which comes from the district in which you vote, plus it impacts the chances overall in the state, which impacts the two electoral votes allocated for the senate seats.
So I submit the CDM method as making much more sense than BBB's proposal of choice. I don't give either one much chance however, because states wish to keep as much influence as possible, for very good reasons.