I agree with you. Eliminating the electoral college changes the nature of the union; it would further erode the notion of being a union of states.
I don't think its going to happen. Barring some abuse of the electoral college system that everyone agrees is an abuse, there is no reason and no support to change it. The fact that you can lose the popular election and win the electoral count is not an abuse, it is a circumstance that cuts both ways and could favor one party as easily as another. (Its a "feature", not a "bug").
If Bush had won the popular vote, and lost the electoral count, I would be as annoyed as the Dems have been these last few years, especially if the beneficiary were someone like Kerry or Gore (or Clinton II). But being annoyed is not sufficient reason to change it.
If it were up to me, the states would abandon PC practice of staging a plebiscite (what the state vote really is) and APPOINT the electors directly. The other change would be to make the vote by the electors secret and free. You would be surprised how the quality of presidents would improve!
BTW, Massachusetts would be better off by sending the Red Sox team to the College. :)