There are absolutely issues with the electoral college system. It's ridiculously archaic in a number of ways.

That being said, there's some value in weighting against population density a little bit. If we were looking at electing a president strictly on the basis of popular vote, then your average Dem would barely step outside the top 10 big cities when campaigning. Consolidating the urban vote would be far more important and far more valuable than reaching out to swing states, needing to broaden your appeal a little bit more to attract a bit more of the rural crowd, rather than simply pandering to the big cities. It's the same reason each state, regardless of size or population, gets equal representation in the Senate.

Frankly, I think that the people crying for electoral reform because Hillary lost should look more at the value of an instant runoff (i.e. 'ranked') ballot as opposed to scrapping the electoral college. (Not to say the EC doesn't need reform, but that's more complicated.) An instant runoff ballot allows one to escape from the mess of a 'two party system' without raising the specter of vote-splitting, and there really are no down sides in terms of a presidential election - well, unless you LIKE a two-party system, and the way it consolidates power in a small political elite.

Quite frankly, if President Cat-Grabber seriously wants to undermine the establishment behind the two main parties, he'll press hard for an instant runoff ballot in future elections. That's how you empower alternative ideas, and the weakening of the entrenched powers, by allowing people to actually vote for third party candidates (and thus giving the third parties reasons to field more serious candidates than the nutbars they did this time around) without being afraid that "A vote for a third party is a vote for the guy you like least".