I for one agree with the NYT. We should abolish the electoral college and each state should be equally represented. After all, we are a federation of states.
The EC was a compromise between big states and small states. It has been a functional compromise. If the Slimes wants to break the compromise, they should be reminded what the other side wanted too.
I support the Electoral College, which was instituted for the same reasons that each state has two Senators. If we abolish the Electoral College, Presidential candidates will attempt to appeal only to the interests of people in largely populated states. You will see more roads, bridges, schools, and other pork in places like California and New York, with a greater share of the expenses being borne by people in places like Wyoming and North Dakota than you see even now. This isn't right. The Electoral College is an attempt to restore at least some of the balance, although even under the Electoral College the bigger states get more of the pork.
Besides, even for people concerned about someone winning the Presidency without winning the popular vote, it has happened only rarely in our history, and in each case the popular vote was very close anyway. So, I'm having trouble even identifying the problem that abolishing the Electoral College is supposed to solve.
Last but not least, it seems to be a political reality that areas with concentrated populations tend to be more socialist and pacifist (i.e. blue) than areas that are less densely populated (i.e. red). As someone who is opposed to both, I don't want to support a proposal that will make it slightly easier for the socialists and pacifists to win Presidential elections.