It was an interesting article. Thanks for posting it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whatever over-representation the EC ensures for small states IMO is outweighed by the fact that it also effectively disenfranchises many voters in Presidential elections. What happens to the votes of Republicans in New York, or Illinois? Or to Democrats in Texas? The point of the OP was to encourage people to vote. If the votes of 2.3 million Bush voters in Michigan in 2004 were essentially worthless, then that is a major problem with the system.
I suppose what we really differ on are our views of federalism. The founders established the EC to reflect the view that the states should elect the President. I believe in today's world that's anachronistic and anti-democratic. We're just not a nation of individual states anymore--like it or not, those days are gone forever. I think the President should represent the people, and should be elected by the people--not by middlemen under the direction of state legislatures. The founders themselves were quite smart, but hardly infallible. They never intended the Constitution to be immutable. They incorporated an amendment process to fix it's flaws as times and circumstances changed. This would be a good use for it.
Are you familiar with Henry Brands? He's a history professor at Univ. Of Texas. He made a good point about the EC. He says a real test of any institution is if it would be created if it didn't already exist. If, we the people, had been directly electing the President all along, would we have changed it to something like the EC? Think about it.