Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.
As frustrating as it is to you and your ilk, the Electoral College perfectly serves its purpose. Were it not for the Electoral College, candidates would campaign in a dozen or so cities and the rest of the country would be slaves and cash cows to the citizens of those few wrecked cities.
Actually, replace "cities" with "states" and that's what it does already. The Wisconsins and Ohios get all the action, the Idahos and Massachusettses get the shaft. Both in terms of meeting the candidates and in terms of their vote. And nobody ever bothers with Alaska and Hawaìi --- they split 'em by 'gentlemen's agreement'.
I'm in Carolina (the real one, not the banana republic) so I actually had a vote. My friends and relatives in Mississippi and California and Texas and Washington, had zippo. They could have voted with their states, could have voted against their states, or they could have stayed home. None of those "options" would have made a damn bit of difference to the end result.
That ain't a "vote". That's a farce. And it's why we get a pathetic 55% turnout 45% said, "**** it, what's the point?" Surely you can remember tales of totalitarian states that hold a fake "vote" where the glorious dictator gets an amazing 99% of the vote. Yeah we can relate.
It also makes us dependent on polls to see whether we should even
bother to "vote". If your state isn't close --- what's the point? It's already pre-decided FOR you.
Didn't think this through didja?
When that same state elects a governor, does it muster some kind of state electoral college to count up who won each county/parish/borough? Nope --- we do that by direct vote. All 57 states. What's the difference?