The whole point of the Electoral College is that it gives smaller states an advantage over larger ones.
Imagining other scenarios is great fun, but the point needs to be stated - the Electoral College isn't failing when someone loses the popular vote and wins the election. That outcome is the sole purpose of having an electoral college. "Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College." is almost precisely wrong.
Equal-population states is a very fundamental change to the system. The advantages and disadvantages columns aren't engaging with the actual issues surrounding the electoral college.
>The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.
I don't think the statement above means the electoral college was about giving smaller states an advantage over larger ones. For one, the electoral college was developed during a time when communication was very difficult, and education and literacy was not as widespread. Conditions have changed, and it is possible the system is now too far skewed in one direction such that it no longer represents the people's wishes.
Ok sure, but without having analysed electors vs. senator numbers that is probably tending towards a more extreme power differential than what I suggested. Instead of [other party voters] it would be [other party leadership figures]. And the outcome would be largely similar.
The point is that it is a mechanism for overriding the popular vote. Ergo, whenever it swings into action it will be making a decision other than the popular one. They knew that when it was set up.
The President is supposed to faithfully execute the laws and abide by the Constitution. The States have a greater concern over who the arbiter and executor of their pact is than the general populace.
