Majority of Americans continue to favor moving away from Electoral College

65% of U.S. adults say the way the president is elected should be changed

Hmm this seems unfair. How about we redo the survey but this time break it down state-by-state where the majority option in each state will be considered the "winner" of the entire state (except for in Maine and Nebraska, in which the minority option is still given some points) and then these states will appoint a certain number of people (the number of people each state can appoint is equal to how many representatives they have plus two for their senators, except in DC where its capped at the state with the least amount of appointed people) where they will redo the survey again but now they have the opportunity to change the results if they feel like it (but don't worry that basically has never happened so it's all good) and after that each state will count the actual votes and then mail them to DC where Congress will count the votes from each state and the members of Congress get a chance to vote to ignore a state if enough of them feel like it (but again don't worry this has never happened! It's all good!) and after that hopefully one of the options has a majority because if not then the house gets to choose and if they can't decide then the senate gets to pick and if nobody can make up their minds then the Speaker gets to temporarily decide until everyone figures their stuff out.

I think that's how Americans should answer all their surveys since it's more fair.

I would modify the electoral college rather than get rid of it. Make it so that states are obligated to assign their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to the number of votes received.

Why? You're accepting the premise but then stopping short. Yes, a candidate's final outcome in the election should be proportional to the number of votes they received. You want to make it less unfair, but we can just as easily make it completely fair by making the outcome exactly proportional to the vote.

not completely disenfranchise rural voters

According to the US Census, roughly 20% of Americans live in rural areas. Under the Electoral College, most of these people get effectively no say in who is the president. Nobody cares what rural voters in Texas or California or Wyoming or Oklahoma think because they're not swing states. In a popular election, these 20% of Americans would get 20% of the say, and their individual vote would carry the same weight as everyone else. That's the only fair system. Making it less rigged is still rigged.

What does the Electoral College breakdown look like on that poll?

If two or three states end up picking the president,

I would modify the electoral college rather than get rid of it. Make it so that states are obligated to assign their electoral votes to candidates in proportion to the number of votes received. For example, Maryland might go 60% blue and 40% red, so they would give 6 of their 10 votes to blue and 4 to red.

This would de-emphasize the importance of swing states, not completely disenfranchise rural voters, and would return a result that more closely mirrored the popular vote. It might also pave the way for a 3rd party to be relevant if the stars aligned elsewhere.

If two or three states end up picking the president, you're going to have a problem where some geographical regions have disproportionate choice over who runs the country.

A lot of the systems in the USA are set up to help prevent a national divorce caused by disproportionate power accumulating in a few states. The more you eliminate those systems the faster you expedite a national divorce.

30 percent of voters are idiots and blue how they are told. Leaving it to a party vote is also not a great idea.

So leaving our elections up to L.A. and NYC. All Democrats from now on. Hard pass. The founding fathers got it right.

Edit, I love seeing the downvotes. Brings me back to my reddit days