There is pretty wide support for reforming the electoral college. There's the simple way that's probably politically impossible: amending the Constitution, the hard way that's a little easier politically: states assigning electors based on the popular vote (which, some think (and I am one) would require Congressional ratification as an Interstate compact).
Of course, the latest impetus for this movement was the loss of Al Gore despite a pretty decent win in the popular vote. And now with some national polls showing very different results from swing state polls, the discussion is coming up again. It seems like a possibility much higher than what Nate Silver suggests (though I'm sure he's right, and this is just the bias that comes from something seeming possible) that Obama could win the EC and lose the popular vote.
My personal reasons for wanting an end to the EC is that I have a pretty fundamental disdain for states. The laboratories of democracy produce more radioactive waste than vaccines, if you catch my drift, and between the electoral college, the senate, and the current primary system, some Americans are way more equal than others. Being an Iowan right now must feel like being the hot girl in high school: everyone gives you attention all the time.
But then there are places that just don't matter much, like California and Texas and New York. Sure, sometimes these places elect senators and governors of the opposite party, usually because s/he is a good candidate, or the last incumbent of the other party messed up, or boredom. But the character of these three largest states is what it is. We are taken for granted.
So, no message is getting in. Combine the electoral strategies with how the Internet and cable channels let us live in different worlds, and it's no wonder that people in California think what they think and people in Texas think what they think. We're not talking to each other any more.
What's interesting is that while California has always been somewhat socially liberal, it was a solid Republican state for most of its existence. Earl Warren was our governor, but so was Ronald Reagan. What seemed to change was that Latinos were part of the Democratic coalition and so, especially after Prop 187, Democrats became completely dominant in the state. It's not that a bunch of Republicans became Democrats or more liberal. Some did, but I think it was mostly new people changing the numbers. Then, you add in polarization and even many CA Republicans can't support their national party.
I don't know these stories in Texas or New York as well. But I imagine they're somewhat different. I imagine in Texas, Conservative Democrats were more of a phenomenon than liberal Republicans.
But what is ridiculous to me is that there is no competition, call it "pandering," to New York City, Houston, San Francisco, Los Angeles in this election. Are votes are taken for granted and we're all pigeonholed.
So, I think this puts solid blue America in one world, solid red America in another, and then we have giant fights over Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, and a few other places. Ironically, states like New York and California have to rely on the seniority of their Congressional delegations to get something even approaching our fair share, just like Alaska and Hawaii traditionally have.
A popular vote America might not always work out for Democrats. But it would work better for America to get a Bush I Republican than a Bush II Republican even it means we get Clinton Democrats instead of Johnsons (or whatever).
I'm sure someone else has said all of this before. I'm just putting it out there in my own voice.