Is the Electoral College Out of Touch?

The articles I'll be referring to can be found here:

NYTimes

The Guardian

The Boston Globe

The commonality shared between the NYTimes, the UK's Guardian, and the Boston Globe is that all three talk about or touch upon the electoral college.

Some interesting preliminary information is that it's somewhat rare for a Presidential candidate to win the national popular vote, yet lose the Presidency because the electoral vote did not match up.

That aside, there has been lots of talk as to whether the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. The primary complaint seems to be that the focus is squarely on the so-called "swing states," whereas other voters are essentially ignored due to their state's electoral vote being already locked in. The article does well to point out that originally, the electoral college was created as a means to even the voting field for all of the states. This way, candidates wouldn't ignore small towns and states, instead merely campaigning in the big cities for the most votes. Ironically, this has happened anyway, only with swing-state cities and towns being the battlegrounds.

Another interesting facet to this developing argument is that several states have signed what is called the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact." This basically says that a signing state promises to cast all its electoral votes for whoever wins the national popular vote. It is also important to note that this would only go into effect after the total number of signed states' electoral votes is higher than 270.

(Green = Signed into Law
Yellow = Pending Legislation
Grey = No Bill Pending)

One reason for this apparent behavior is the angry Presidential election of 2000, which is still a point of contention. Another is that due to the inter-connectivity via the internet and popular media, all votes would become equal in terms of worth. Whereas now, it would seem that swing-state votes are more valuable than those who are not swing-staters. Thus, a vote from rural Wyoming would be just as important as a vote from New York City.

This seems to be a bit more evidence toward Warner's concept of publics, in addition to Poster's article regarding "netizenship" and the evolution of the public sphere. People seem to want the ability to participate in government, or at least have the option there if they so choose. Likewise, this would require an evolution political media, so that candidates could reach all voters, rather than just the coveted swing-staters.

The closeness of the 2012 Presidential election is also a factor in the national popular vote outweighing  the electoral college. The 2000 Presidential election again being an example of the pitfalls a close election holds for the electoral college. A final facet that is also somewhat troubling is the concept of a national campaign to harvest the popular vote. Current campaigning practices are already somewhat filthy and prompt disgust. I can only imagine if that occurred on a national level without constraint.