Lots of name calling!
I have a logical reason for abolishing the Electoral College, which is, as you implied, a type of "affirmative action" for the more rural areas. It was originally a requirement by "slave states", as they were called, before they would join the Union. It's purpose then was so the less-populated States could prevent an Anti-Slavery President from becoming elected. And, it worked until the Southern States began to secede, enabling Lincoln to be elected on a platform that would have allowed slavery to continue in States that already had slavery, but would prevent it in any new States.
Now, it's about the less-populated rural States from feeling dominated by more populated. But, as the last elections showed, that isn't necessary. The SENATE is popular-vote, and no matter how small a State's population is, compared to others, it still gets 2 Senators, same as all the rest.
Here's the most logical reason to abolish the Electoral College method: It literally DISENFRANCHISES voters when it comes to electing a President. The Supreme Court has upheld the One-Person-One-Vote concept, and the Electoral College winner-take-all system cancels that out.
In California, about a third of voters, mostly rural, voted for a Republican President. But NOT ONE of those votes mattered, because ALL Electoral votes went to the Democratic candidate. Obviously, the reverse occurred in majority Republican States.
A candidate for President should be a candidate for the entire Nation, with enough appeal to both urban and rural voters to win the Popular-vote of the entire Nation, without disenfranchising nearly half the voters. Or, in case of the years 2000 and 2016, more than half the voters. That just emphasized the point that the Electoral College is fundamentally flawed as a fair method for selecting the President.