A few things. First, I surely don't have any political muscle to preserve. *Points to third party avatar*
Now, the second point is that there is a reason we are a
representative democracy as opposed to a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" This is a very good indicator as to what the founding fathers thought of democracy, and I think they were right. Urban political interests are distinctly different from rural political interests. A direct popular vote does not protect the representation of rural interests in any way whatsoever.
This all goes to the core of the matter: our government is not run as it was intended to be run. Currently, the federal government has many responsibilities - most of which are not afforded to it by the constitution. The United States is a Federal Republic, meaning that each state is essentially its own government, with a federal government for defense and a few national issues. We have a very well thought-out bicameral system of government which is very representative of the mindset in which our government was created. The House is based on population, hence it is the people's representation in the federal government. In the house, each congressperson is representing roughly 700,000 people, with a minimum of one congressperson per state. This is our direct voice in the federal government. The senate is the *state's* voice in the federal government. Hence, each state has 2 senators. This is representative of the interest in state's rights.
Now, our election system. We do not vote for president. We're not supposed to vote for president. Why does it matter now? Only because the federal government does not act in the way it was intended. The primary affecter of our lives is intended to be the state. Thus, the president is chosen not by the winner of a national election, but by the winner of MANY state elections. This is representative that the federal government is, primarily, the government of the states, along with having other side effects. Namely, that the voices of rural populations are protected.
There's a reason a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college would likely never pass. It would disenfranchise entire states of voters (minus their population centers). It also does not respect the ideals with which our government was created. The people hold the power in the states, and the states form the federal government. This works VERY well when the federal government is run as it is intended to be run.
Now, let's look at New Mexico. New Mexico, as one can see simply by its electoral votes, is relatively meaningless when it comes to population. If the president were chosen by direct popular vote, NO ATTENTION would be paid to New Mexico. What's interesting about New Mexico, however, is that it has the largest Hispanic population of any state (over 40%). Because of the electoral college, however, as we all know both campaigns have been paying close attention to New Mexico. Both campaigns have had to consider the position of Hispanics in balance with the position of the educational elite. All for those 5 crucial electoral votes. However, it is *only* 5. New Mexico does not hold an unreasonable amount of say in the election, relative to more populous states such as California. However their say is protected and they do have one.
Here's why I think I could support apportioning votes the way Maine does it, but only if gerrymandering were addressed by requiring all states to draw congressional districts in the way Iowa does so. Maine gives 2 electoral votes to the overall winner of the state, and then each congressional district has one vote. Apportioning electoral votes in this manner respects the concept that the federal government is a government of states AND the people, giving every 700,000 or so people in the state one electoral vote (mimicking the House) and the overall state 2 electoral votse (mimicking the Senate).