I could be wrong, but I thought part of the reasoning for the electoral college was to appease some of the smaller less populated states. Going to a straight popular vote I think would diminish the importance of votes in less populated states...
I'm no political expert, so take my words as just a frustrated citizen trying to be objective for new reasonable solutions.
Well that's what evolved out of it, but was never the actual intent. That argument falls apart when you ask the question why we should appease people in smaller states by making their vote count more than a person in a populous state.
Land shouldn't have a vote, people should. 1 person = 1 vote, that's my opinion on it.
There are 5,000,000 people in California whose vote simply don't count because they voted for Romney. That's just not right to me.
After 2000 it was impossible to get this point across to the right because the EC worked in their favor. Now that they had a close glimpse of the possibility of the same situation, maybe we can actually get something done.