Poor George, you seem to be having a bad hair day.
Pray tell me why you object to having a democratic one-person-one-vote process rather than voters in smaller states having, in effect, super votes, which I find very undemocratic?
Actually it is a good day, but sympathy in any reasonable form is always welcome.
I outlined my reasons in a post above.
With a popular election candidates and political parties will naturally put their resources and attention in those areas in which they can gain the greatest political benefit at the least cost. I fear this will result in the effective disenfranchisement of folks in Wyoming, New Mexico and like places.
Moreover the attendant focus on our largest population centers will add its own bias to the process and increase the payoff potential for corruption in these population centers.
Finally I note that the electoral college has altered the outcome of only three elections from what would have occurred with a popular vote. In only one did the winner of the majority of votes cast end up the loser. In the other two cases the holder of the smaller plurality lost. In all three the popular vote margins were very small.
In every other election the electoral college process provided the nation with a clear outcome by amplifying the underlying tendencies in the popular vote. This is a significant benefit that contributes to stability.