There's so much wrong with this, it hurts.
if we hold elections based on proportion of people inside a line on map, why not use the existing map?? It's not fair for federal elections but it is for county/state wide elections? Fairness isn't why districting is done, losing is.
We don't. The next big level is gubernatorial, and that's done solely on a popular vote. Senators and representatives are where most gerrymandering occurs and the reasoning behind districts is that there is no evenly divide for whatever share of representatives your state receives is. California, for example, doesn't have 53 counties (though, coincidentally, it's darn close).
Look, I'm all for everyone's vote counting.
Then make the presidential vote a popular one, it works fine for governors and there's only one race, in recent times, it would have affected (Gore /Bush). It also allows for more leeway for alternative nominees to get in, instead of locking the system into a two-party fight.
The primary reason the electoral system exists (regional delays in voting) is now antiquated, with modern technology.
If anyone thinks something isn't hinky, why does California have a history that includes many Republican governors yet always seems to choose a Democrat for president
This is two items that you're falsely correlating and conflating an issue from. To answer the first part: put a California Republican against a Bible Belt one and you might as well have a Democrat standing next to a Republican. The Republicans that take the gubernatorial vote are almost always conservative fiscally with maybe one or two big social stances (Schwarzenegger on jails, for example). To answer the second half of that statement: because the state's firmly liberal and anyone can see that, clear as day. I mean, hell, Obama had ~60% of the popular vote compared to Romney's 37% back in 2012. And that's pretty much how it's been for ~35 years, with a 10-20% divide: 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992. Even before that, since FDR it's been hard for a Republican to get the vote.