America has a well balanced system, as demonstrated by this weeks blue wave. If the party in power fails to adequately deliver, the people throw them out. Changing the formula to give a strategic advantage to one side would be a dangerous move.
The purpose of democracy is not to balance between arbitrary parties.
Likewise, we don’t use a simple vote tally or other schemes like vote proportional to taxes paid. We use the carefully designed electoral college to make sure states are fairly represented.
The popular vote tally was intentionally disregarded. The founders wisely understood the problems a straight vote tally would bring, and avoided them.
Changing the formula would seriously put things at risk.
Instead, they left it up to the individual states to decide how to select electors, and initially most of them opted to have the state legislature choose the electors, not a popular vote of the state's citizens. It took decades for all states to converge on having a state-wide popular vote decide electors, and even today, "faithless" (rogue) electors -- who vote against the popular will -- are not punished in a number of states!
Given that the Constitution explicitly gives power to the individual states to decide how to select electors, there's nothing inherently "changing the formula" in a state deciding to select electors based on the entire country's popular vote tally, instead of just the state's vote tally.
Rather, the main argument against this is whether it violates the Compact Clause in article 1 by virtue of being a compact between states.
And supreme court is thoroughly politicized. It needs reform, because it is one of reasons for the dysfunction, for the lack of accountability and for the creation of imperial presidency.
Anyway you should acquaint yourself with this reality. Because it is seemingly nothing like what you have described.