It could never get ratified. State's like mine would never be campaign stops without the electoral college, and for that very reason, the states with smaller populations would never stand for it.
You're absolutely right... states like Delaware, Rhode Island, Wyoming and South Dakota that only have 3 electoral votes will never go for this. Without the Electoral College, those states lose what little power they have, and control of national elections goes to the 7 or 8 states with the highest populations (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, MI, OH, PA). Right now California has 55 electoral votes, Rhode Island 3. Under a system based only on popular vote, without the Electoral College, it would be the equivalent of giving California 100 electoral votes and Rhode Island 3, since California has about 34 million people and Rhode Island has just over 1 million.
The truth is that if you go for a one-man-one-vote concept...then you might as well forget about the Iowa/New Hampshire pre-runs...they will disappear within four years. You basically worry about the entire west coast, Texas, the south by itself, the iron-belt of Ohio/Michigan/Indiana/Chicago and New York. Everyone else, especially those from Idaho, North Dakota and Alaska...can foget about their significance in elections. If I were a major candidate...I'd pump every dollar in major urban areas and max out exposure as much as possible in the top 30 cities in America. It simply makes sense.
There is a reason why we went to the electoral college. If the good senator from california thinks getting rid of the electoral college is a good idea...then we ought to think the same about the senate...because its the same problem and same issue. We don't really need a Senate if the house does the job they are suppose to. We can save over $300 million a year by cutting out the Senate. I'd be in favor of that.