1. What you think is "equitable" in fact is not: the Electoral College as it currently exists places disproportionate weight on voters from states with small populations. Why should their votes have more influence on the outcome than someone who lives in a large city? Each person's vote should count for an equal share in the determination of any voting outcome. That is by definition equal representation and this is not how the Electoral College works.
I agree with you - it isn't equitable on a per person basis. However, what you are asking for is urban areas to be the only ones who "matter" because enough of the population lives in 4 or 5 metro areas that they would decide the election.
So, we talk about Hillary winning the popular vote by 2 million. Absolutely true. Now consider the implications that 1.5 million of those votes came from LA county, and another 1.5 million came from NYC. So, in less than 0.02% of the land area of the United States we got +3 million for Hillary, and in the other 99.98% we have +1 million for Trump.
Do you know what happens when large areas feel their government doesn't represent them? They fight back. In this case, they might stop selling their grain, meat, veggies and fruits to the cities. Of course, the only option for the government at that point is to send in the National Guard - because they aren't going to let 100 million people starve. How well do you think that will turn out?