Can't see how it could be worse
Do we really want the President to be chosen by just the voters of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Michigan? States with large cities would gain a tremendous amount of power if the EC was abolished. I would have to see a lot more information on the costs and benefits of abolishing the EC before I could support it.
Yes there is a significant risk that a couple of big states would dominate the presidential elections, but that would also be domination by the majority of the population. And I find it hard to believe that could be worse then the current system, where a large percentage of the population is just written of because they live in a state that leans one way or another sharply and the value of citizens in low population states is much greater then that of citizens in high population states.
The linked article points out that the states don't have to have a winner-take-all system for chosing Electors. Perhaps a more democratic system could be constructed by changing the way Electors are chosen while keeping the EC. I'd need to see the details though.
That might improve things a bit, but it would do nothing to solve the problem that voters in small states count for more then voters in big states.
The biggest reasons for the current organization of the EC is that when the country was founded everything had to be done by hand and the fastest communication was horseback. The EC was setup the way it is so a single presidential voting event could be held. Each state could pick it's electors on their own schedule and then they would get together in one place to pick the president. These reasons no longer exist, and the entire EC should be replaced with direct election.
Jay