Nationally. In Minnesota. When first seen the proposal to deal with the Constitutional electoral requirements in an indirect way seemed somehow wrong here. After the Trump election, the view here was more open, and the effort is now favored. The change of opinion is not because Trump's taking office with Clinton having a higher popular vote was viewed as against the nation's best interest; Clinton being equally bad a choice; but because the strategy of focus on "key states" with many electorial votes and not clearly biased for one party or the other means that a vote in a state not viewed, strategically, as "key" does not count as much in the final outcome as one in a "key" state. It is not one person, one equal vote for President, it is a Wyoming Republican person's vote or a Massachuttes Democratic person's vote being discounted in true importance when such states are not considered "key." One person - one vote gets distorted via electors and all, whereas in a nationwide count the debasement of some voters having an equal say in things, the power of a vote, means less as a practical matter in fact if not in theory. And that distortion effect is only at the presidential election level, not down ballot.
Short of Constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college set-up, the National Public Vote approach is the only alternative.
In Minnesota the House passed NPV, the Republican-led Senate punted. Once both houses and the executive are Democratic the hope here is that NPV will not then be forgotten or shelved. It is not a stunt. It is an honest attempt at reform.
Read about the concept, with links given above, if you do not already know what the proposal entails.