I wouldn't sweat it.
I believe a super majority is needed for Congress to amend the constitution, and that ain't gonna happen.
It takes a 2/3's majority to pass a constitutional amendment in Congress. However, it takes ratification by 3/4 of the states before it becomes law. There is no way 3/4 of the states will vote to surrender the power the electoral college gives them. The big ones like NY, CA, IL, OH, PA, and MI might along with some of the hard core leftist states but beyond that, most would not.
Not only that, but a supermajority of the state legislatures must also ratify it. The later is true even if the amendment is proposed by a Constitutional Convention, the alternative method specified by the Constitution. The Con-Con itself must also be called by a super majority of the state legisaltures. (2/3 majority in both cases). Like you said, that ain't gonna happen.
You are right .. and I believe an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. It would take years and years to accomplish this - plenty of time to educate the public to the reality of "the most votes wins".
Two thirds majority in Congress and three-fourths of the States.
The real virtue of the electoral college today is to manage the outbreak of corruption which would be inherent in an undifferentiated massive "One man- one vote" as well as to uphold the representative federalist form of government.
I hope BW enjoyed Florida 2000. With direct election of the president, we would have ten, twenty, a hundred Floridas every election, because every vote would be worth cheating for, and suing for, not just those in close states. It would mean fighting and refighting election returns in corrupt sinkholes like St Louis and Philly, to name just two, where large numbers of fraudulent votes were tallied.