So false. You're comparing apples to oranges.
First off, the biggest problem with the current drive to elect the President by popular vote is the people pushing for it are trying to go AROUND the Constitution and create some Orwellian "popular vote compact" where the electoral college would still exist but they would ignore it and have their states cast their electoral votes for whoever won the "popular vote" nationally. That is blatantly unconstitutional, I'd have a lot more respect for them if they WOULD go the constitutional route and simply introduce an amendment to repeal the electoral college, but that's not what they're doing. If anything, their tactics are more along the lines of what you "states rights" people want, since they're actively encouraging STATE GOVENRMENTS and STATE LEGISLATURES to thumb their nose at the feds and allow 12 liberal states to do whatever they want even if the remaining 38 states are vehemently against it. The only difference between their tactics and yours is they are motivated to do so for a liberal cause. (namely ensuring Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago will get a "progressive" President from now on)
Secondly, the electoral college is not comparable to the method of electing Senators prior to the 17th. If they devised a similar system (e.g., state legislatures get to elect whoever they want as President with the people having no say in the process whatsoever), I'd oppose that too and call for the repeal of such a system. Rather, the electoral college allows the people to directly participate because in most states, the electoral votes are cast for whoever wins the statewide POPULAR VOTE. In that way, the electoral college differs little from those eeeeeeeeeevil post-17th amendment Senate elections. We the PEOPLE of the state DIRECTLY vote for who WE want as President, and the electors, 99% of the time, cast their votes accordingly. Who the state government officials -- state representatives, assemblymen, state senators, governors, etc. want to be President is irrelevant to the process, just like it is in a Senate race, and as it should be. 99% of the state government can endorse Carter for President, if the people want Reagan, the state government doesn't get their way (sorry, Massachusetts government)
Third, I hate the break the news to all you alarmists screaming about how terrible it is that the PEOPLE and not the politicians elect their officials, but we need MORE democracy in America, not less. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves, and I can pick my Senators and President perfectly well without my state government officials making that choice for me. This is Conservativism 101 -- the PEOPLE, not the state, should make most of the decisions over their lives. But if you guys want to scream about "STATES RIGHTS!!", I'll give you a perfectly good example. In my state, the people directly ELECT our judges via popular vote. Nationally, the people have no such power, the President appoints whoever he wants to serve for life, and the Senate rubber stamps that choice regardless of how the citizens of the United States feel about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and so on. From experience, I can tell the system we have in MY state of electing judges is infinitely superior to the one where politicians make that choice. We recently had a liberal activist state supreme court judge who had dismal approval ratings, and rather than face defeat, he retired and a good conservative Republican was elected in his place. Just like eeeeeeeeeevil 17th amendment, the federal government would be better served if we amended the U.S. Constitution and allowed THE PEOPLE to vote out bad federal judges. Yes, that eeeeeeeevil democracy in action is GOOD for our country. If you disagree and prefer politicians picking all your federal officials for you, try Cuba.
Regarding democracy, I think you are assuming that citizens will vote according to what is constitutional and what is best for society. Look around - that clearly is not the case. Many millions of Americans sit around doing nothing while a shrinking number of taxpayers subsidize their existence.
Most of these no- or low-information voters have no clue about constitutional issues, economics, treaties, national security, and so on; and only vote based on their own personal and immediate interests.
When a society has a significant percentage of voters that don’t know or don’t care what happens to anyone else, they vote for politicians that won’t follow the laws that govern our society. Remember, true democracy is a group of wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner... that is what is occurring politically today.
That is why we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy - because the Founders wanted to prevent THIS from happening.