Some call for the end of the Electoral College, but I'm not one. The Continental Congress debated if we should have a chief executive and, if so, how would that person be picked. The College was a compromise. I favor the College since we are a federation of separate states, giving even the smallest some part in electing the president.
The Founders feared a straight popular vote and possible tyranny of the majority. I share that fear, thinking the most populated states would be in control. Toss in big money and TV, who knows who could be elected?
However, I would welcome prorating the electoral votes in each state rather than the winner-takes-all now used by all but two states. In the last election, this would have still given Barack Obama the win but by only about 20 votes, more reflective of the 3.4 million popular majority. It was a waste of time to vote for Mitt Romney in Washington or Oregon, where polls indicated Obama would win big. But, prorating in Washington would have given Romney 5.16 electoral votes to Obama's 6.84. Third parties would have a better chance.
Another change could eliminate the party-elected electors, having the attorney general or governor report the results to the Senate president.