If all states awarded electors proportionally: Clinton wins by a single elector.

270 - Clinton
267 - Trump
1 - McMullin

I hadn't seen this from anywhere previously, and I was curious what the result would be like if states awarded the electors proportional to the actual vote. I looked across the Internet and couldn't find any articles on this, so I performed the math myself.

I took each state's number of electors and divided this by 100 in order to determine what percentage of the vote any candidate would have to win in order to win an elector. That eliminated all 3rd party candidates except Evan McMullin in Utah, where he qualified for a single elector.

I used this as well as the percentage each won for each state and created a spread sheet to see how this would come out. I was surprised, not knowing the answer until the very end.

In order to make this work, I eliminated ties, and the candidate with the highest percentage of votes would receive at least 1 elector more than the next nearest candidate.

In some case, such as a state like Michigan, where the vote was so close, these ended up as ties. However, Michigan has 20 electors. In the tie, that would mean it was split 10:10 Trump:Clinton, but using the rule where one candidate had to be awarded at least one elector more than the next nearest candidate, that split is changed to 11:9 Trump:Clinton.

In the end, the deciding factor was Washington D.C.. Here, Clinton won all three electoral votes, as Trump only won 4.1% of the vote and didn't qualify for an elector. Had he won an elector here, then Hillary would not have won the 270 needed and the election would be sent to the House.

So, if anyone wants to argue for proportional allocation of electors, I would counter with the argument that if this was the system, the way candidates run would be completely different and could easily change the election's outcome.

Oh, and D.C. is a cesspool.