...the electoral college is completely weighed toward the small states.  That might not have been the case in 1790 or even in 1950.  But it is now, and will surely be more and more so in the foreseeable future.

California, Texas, New York, Florida (4 biggest pop. states) = 99.6 million people = 147 electoral votes combined.  (These stats might be from as early as 2000, but are roughly the same now.)

Alaska, Delaware, Wash DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming (7 smallest pop. states + DC) = 5.7 million people = 24 electoral votes combined (each has 3).  

So 99.6 million people get 147 electoral votes and 5.7 million people get 24 electoral votes.  Roughly 17.5 times as many people get represented with roughly 6.1 times as many votes.  And while the extremes are the most obvious way to prove the point of unfair weight, the scale of votes to population continues to favor the smaller states all the way down the line (in large part because tiny states still get 2 senators, so they still get two built-in electoral votes.)  In doing the math, it works out to the fact that the smaller states get represented about 2.6 times as much as the bigger states (or at least they did in 2000, and the population explosions in this country are not expected to flood the smaller states as quickly as they do the bigger ones, so the disparity should only be increasing.)

I can understand that if there were only the popular vote, presidential hopefuls could only campaign in the cities (where most of the country is), and not worry about the small towns.  The Founders wanted to protect against "Big City Tyranny", especially when the politicians were travelling by horse and had a very limited schedule to campaign.  But the time has changed.  Now every speech (which are all the same anyway) is broadcast on national TV, and every state race is huge news for the country.  ("Obama and McCain are criss-crossing Florida.  Let's have a look in and see why this matters to you, even if you live in Oregon.")  So you now have an antiquated system which happens to weigh certain citizens more prominently for no reason other than where they live.

Combining this with the fact that the Senate is also heavily weighted WAYYYYY toward the small states (Wyoming and its 500,000 people have the same representation as California's 37 million), and you have an entire system geared toward "Small Town Tyranny."  The ingenious correction in the 18th century is now more egregiously wrong than the original problem. 

And, to be honest, the reason that we are particularly upset is also political--the small states tend to usually be Red states (McCain only won 2 of the top 10 population states), and it gives a markedly unfair weight to Republican politics in Congress.  Combine _that_ with the filibuster rules and only about 29% of the country was represented by the 40 GOP Senators before Brown was elected.  Throw in small-state Lieberman and those 41 were able to block all legislation after being voted in by 30% of the country.

So in terms of fairness, it is time for the Electoral College to go, and because Democrats play softball and Republicans play hardball, this ensures that it will never happen.