As far as I could tell during the 2008 campaign, the only states where McCain campaigned were Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado and did not bother the campaign in small states such as Delaware, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota and Utah.
Furthermore, while McCain only lost the popular vote by 6% but lost the Electoral College by more than 2:1.
Thus as it stands now, the Electoral College favors the Democrats and popular vote would favor Republicans.
McCain did not lose because of the Electoral College. He lost because he ran a horribly bad campaign and for being a RINO. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, the Electoral College was to the benefit of George W. Bush. One election does not prove that the Electoral College should be abolished.
I repeat the poster who replied to you: it was the Electoral system that allowed Bush to win, especially in 2000. Remember how the Dems all wanted it gone because of this 1 instance? (As they always do: react like brats to 1 event - and then screw themselves in the end; to wit, Special Prosecuter, etc.)
Nope. More small states vote GOP and more large states vote Democrat. In normal years.
The GOP usually has a slight but potentially important built-in electoral college advantage. For example, it made the difference in Bush v. Gore.
With the Electoral College system, the states of Alaska, Wyoming, N and S Dakota and Montana, have a total of 15 votes, more than 2.7% of the total.
With a popular vote, these states would have 1.17% of the vote, considerably less than half of their present influence.
I think the question of whether an interstate compact, as proposed by Mr. Soros, is constitutional is quite open. In any case, such a compact could not be legal unless approved by Congress, and could presumably be invalidated by any future Congress by majority vote.