Who else believed the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness?

We should NOT get rid of the Electoral College for two interrelated reasons.

One, if there were a "direct popular vote" system, then a dozen or so large urban areas would be sufficient to elect the President (so presidential candidates would curry favor from those few large urban areas and ignore the remainder of the States/people).

Second to have a "direct popular vote" system you would have to amend the Constitution, which (under Article V), means that (i) you have to have 2/3rds of the Senate AND Representatives agree to the change, AND (ii) you would have to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify the amendment.

In neither case ((i) or (ii)) would this happen because of the prior point.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(Un...

At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive [i.e., President] to be elected by the Legislature. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress..., but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President. Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.

In the Federalist Papers No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses, one state-based (Senate) and the other population-based (House of Representatives) in character, while the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes, giving some electoral power to the states and some to the people in general. Both the Congress and the President would be elected by mixed state-based and population-based means.

The reasons for the Electoral College are still valid.

FYI - Most states DO have laws that bind the electors to vote for the candidate who "won" them (although from a prractical perspective, there is no way to prevent them from voting for the other candidate, only punish them afterward).

All it the E college does is represent the winner of each state after voting and those votes go to the one who got the most popular votes. I see nothing wrong with it.

The electoral college death knell sounded in 2000, but it still hasn't given up the ghost.

It should. It is completely from another era, like slavery, and has no bearing in todays times.

The Electoral College may now be the only thing stopping an illegal alien from his plans to "take power and rule" (direct quote)

the electoral college could redeem itself by voting McCain, and they would all be our hero's for saving our country from a tyrant and con-artist

Yep. the computer age has made the electoral college unnecessary and, quite frankly wrong.

If you call Diebold election machines "technology" then you couldn't be more wrong.

yep