Your suggestion takes the election power away from the states and in essence, give it to the most populated states. As Callia pointed out, you'd have only 9 to 12 states that would be deciding who it the President. That is way WAY too much power in their hands. Abolishing it doesn't solve anything and concentrates the power into two few hands.
Not to mention it would require a Constitutional Convention to do that.
Well, it would solve the problem of allowing people to directly elect the president, and get rid of the problem of a presidential candidate winning the electoral college while loosing the popular vote. It's academic though, since it will never happen without an amendment, and both parties at least moderately support the Electoral College, since they both think that at least occasionally, they can game the system. The states would be against it being abolished as well, so I think that there's very little chance it would ever happen.
So, every four years, I have to explain to my international friends on the internet how the EC works, and every year listen to them complaining that the EC is stupid and should be abolished, and, "What kind of a country do I live in anyway, where the people don't elect their own president?". *sigh* It's a pain.
/shrugs That's the way the states decided to have their electoral ballets counted. As Oniya pointed out, only 2 states have anything different and those are, I believe, enshrined in the state constitutions. Something the federal government cannot touch or change. Especially now. It's much too late and it's not the federal governments power to change how states cast electoral ballets.
If anything, I prefer Oniya's solution over yours. It's fairer and more representative of the people than simply abolishing it altogether.
Well, the idea of getting a bunch of states to sign in to go proportional would be a step in the right direction, and wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. There's been a movement to get a bunch of states to agree to it for years. I think they have seven or eight willing to do it, but not until a bunch of other states also agree to do it.
Oniya's suggestion is interesting, but would require a constitutional amendment as well. Also, I'm not comfortable having the votes tied to Congressional Districts, considering how much gerrymandering that goes on. There are states like Texas and Louisiana that have bent over backwards to try to create the congressional districts in such a way as to reduce the number of Democrat Congressmen to almost nothing. Not to be one sided, I'm pretty sure that Democrats have done the same sort of thing in some states as well, at least at some point. (I honestly don't have an idea of how badly gerrymandered any of the blue states might be, I've only heard of some of the really bad red states.)
I understand that you support the EC. A lot of people do. I lot of people hate it, and I happen to be one of those. I do recognize that there are legitimate arguments both pro and con to the EC. However, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other to change their mind. I propose that we agree to disagree.