Well, let’s keep in mind the end game here.
One of the things that is hampering the Dem party nowadays is that Democrats are concentrating themselves into urban districts. Dems win heavily populated urban districts with 90% of the vote; they lose sparsely populated rural districts but earn 10–40% of the vote; the battle is won or lost in the heavily populated suburban districts.
(Obviously this varies from state to state; I’m generalizing based on how presidential elections have transacted over the last 20–30 years or so.)
Those suburban districts are part of what the census bureau calls a Metropolitan Statistical Area, or MSA; and their voting priorities are not unlike those of the urban districts, in that although they do not usually believe that the government should provide INCREASING levels of social service like the urban districts so…..they definitely don’t want to see DECREASING levels of social service like the rural districts might.
The EC levels the playing field between the urban, suburban, and rural districts. Without it, the urban voters, and their priorities, statistically prevail in presidential elections. FURTHER, the election could statistically be won by prevailing heavily in the largest 20–22 MSA’s in the country……which exist in only 17 different states.
And there you have the endgame: In order to win any presidential election, the party nominee would have to appeal to some number of urban voters. This would require the GOP to become “Dem-lite”, and any thoughts of a modest, non-authoritarian central government would go out the window. Instead of having, say, a Dan Crenshaw as a future POTUS candidate, our own viable candidates would be somebody cut from the Susan Collins mold, and probably somewhat to the left of Susan.