I learned that the point of the electoral college was to insure that a candidate would have to win support from a wide variety of voters, and not just a numerical large group in large cities. If there were no electoral system, candidates would campaign almost exclusively in New York, Chicago, LA, and a hand full of other large cities where large numbers of people live.
Instead we have a system where a bunch of small states have an undue influence, and as such, candidates spend all their time campaigning there. I live in a big city on the west coast, I have never even seen a presidential candidate in person.
No matter the system that you set up, there is going to be an optimal way to campaign and court interest groups, that will leave someone out in the cold. Straight popular votes benefit urban voters. Electoral systems gerrymander popular votes in favor of distributed geographical groups.
Now, consider that the the country was rural and agrarian two hundred years ago, so it might have made a lot of sense to force the politicians out of big cities and distribute influence more geographically. Now that clearly isn't the case. Perhaps going to a straight popular vote makes sense in light of the fact that more people live in cities.
And for fuck sake, knock of the partisan bitching. This is a topic that should not be about Hillary vs. Donald, but rather an honest evaluation about the system we use to choose our leaders. Election reform should transcend party, we all benefit from a system that promotes the best leaders to power.