I am not convinced that ditching the electoral collage would lead to the sure victories that many Democrats think.
With out the electoral collage there would be no swing states. Up side is a vote in CA would count just as much as one in WI or PA. Downside is now candidates would have to compete nation wide for votes. Advertising and get out the vote efforts nation wide would be exponentially more expensive than when you only have to spend effort on maybe ten swing states. People think campaigns are expensive now, just wait until you have to compete nation wide. While there are exceptions, in my lifetime it has been Republicans that have been better at raising money.
This would also give more power to the press. While traditionally Democrats have had an advantage in with the press, with the rise of the likes of Fox News, Newsmax and Elon buying Twitter, that advantage is not what it once was.
Elections are often about who turns out to vote and who stays home. The most likely to stay home are the voters who don't think their vote is going to count. Voters on the losing side of a state where the margin is not going to be close. For example, Republicans in New York or Democrats in Wyoming. There are a lot more Republicans in States like NY than there are Democrats in States like WY.
Change the rules of the game and candidates play the game differently. It is not guaranteed that Gore would have won in 2000 and Clinton would have won in 2016 if it had been a simple majority to decide who wins because both Bush and Trump would have play their hand differently. For example, Trump would have held rallies in CA to boost his turnout, would this have made up the difference in total votes. There is no way to know for sure.
