The Electoral College isn't going to be eliminated. It only takes 13 states to block an amendment and there are more than 13 states that benefit from the Electoral College.

However, the problem that the Electoral College creates can be eliminated another way. [1]

The biggest problem with the Electoral College is that the smallest states are guaranteed 3 Electors because the Constitution defines the number of of Electors per state as the number of Senators plus the number of Representatives. The number of Senators is always two. [2]

The number of Representatives varies with population, but when a state only has 1 Representative, its share of the Electoral College is effectively triple. And thereby, very small states have an unfair share of the say. But the Constitution doesn't require this. [3]

The number of Representatives per state is not determined by the Constitution, but by law, and the latest law to that effect was the Reapportionment Act of 1929. A new law can change the numbers of Representatives per state and it does not require a Constitutional amendment. [4]

If, say, we increased the total number of Representatives by a factor of 6, we would have a much larger House of Representatives. We would also no longer have a wild skew between state population and number of electors. [5]

Currently, California has 55 Electors and Wyoming 3. This overrepresents each citizen of Wyoming in the Electoral College by a factor of 3.6 over a citizen of California. But if the number of Representatives were multiplied by 6, that would end. [6]

In the new arrangement, Wyoming might end up with 4 Representatives and California with 315. Now, in the new Electoral College, Wyoming would have 6 Electors and California 317. Wyoming would still be overrepresented but by 16%, not 261%. [7]

Combined with legislation that ends gerrymandering, the U.S. government – House as well as President would once again be chosen by the people the way the authors of the Constitution intended. [8/end]