It’s weird how often I see this written when it’s so obviously untrue and to the small extent it is true, would still be an improvement.That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.
1) states are not homogenous. When you look at ‘solid’ red or blue states they are ones where one side won by like 20 points, meaning the other side got like 40% of the popular vote! The idea that a handful of states would dominate is just false.
2) if anything the electoral college makes the outcome dependent on a handful of states, and they are ones determined by politics and not any measure we view as intrinsically useful.
3) this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a republic is. A republic means one thing, and one thing only - you elect representatives instead of voting directly. If the president was elected by a national popular vote we would have no less of a republic than we do now. If anything the electoral college is an aspect of a confederation.
4) It would not require a constitutional amendment to effectively eliminate the electoral college.