The article notes that many lawmakers complain that the present winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes is less reflective of the popular will than allocation by congressional district.
The obvious question: Why use congressional districts rather than the national vote tally?
The answer is probably quite simple: Republicans, who lost a few seats, will still easily retain control of the House, although President Obama won both the national popular vote and the electoral vote. It turns out that Democratic members of Congress and candidates also received more total votes than the Republicans. The Senate races, which depend on statewide votes, actually better reflect the popular will.
Why is the Senate more representative of the popular will than the House? State boundaries cannot by altered by the party in power, while congressional districts in many (mostly red) states are. Republicans have been more successful at gerrymandering than Democrats.