You could add, not Illinois, not Minnesota, not Oregon, not Washington?
Without the Electoral College, it would have been worthwhile for Trump to have chased votes in those places. Because, without the EC, anybody voting for Trump in those states would have boosted his vote total. With the EC, there is little point to wasting time in places like California, Illinois, New York, or Massachusetts.
On the other hand, without the EC, but with the House and Senate, there would still be reason to spread the coattails to places like Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and, yes, Texas. Because, even if you won the popular vote and the election, you still couldn't govern worth a damn without the Congress.
Trump told 60 Minutes, "I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes."
But then, right a few minutes after he posted the tweet I quoted above, he tweeted:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/798521053551140864
If I were going to change the Electoral College, I would have the vote go by congressional district. One vote per CD carried plus two extra for carrying the majority of a state's CDs, or the popular vote in the event of a tie in a state's CDs.
That would achieve the geographic distribution objective and also limit the influence of urban cesspools. Under that system, for instance, it is likely Trump would have earned 15 of California's 55 EVs. Under the current Electoral College, the coastal urban moonbats were able to give all 55 EVs to Hillary.