The Electoral College has the unfortunate fact that it doesn't give the entire population what it wants. Hypothetically, if in an election, the votes in California were split 49% to 51%. All 55 of California's Electoral College votes would go to one candidate, even though it was very close. If this was to happen multiple times, in many states, the U.S itself would be very deep in a state of chaos. To provide the entire population with what it wants, this outdated system must be replaced with the National Popular Vote.
If you were told you had to make a small campaign to three people, two of those people only had three dollars each, while the third person had fifty dollars, wouldn't you try to get the fifty dollars much more than the three? That's the basic idea behind the College, it favors states with the larger Electoral College. Now say you were told you had 300,000,000 people in front of you, each with one dollar, no one had more or less, you would work your a** off to try and get each and every one of those dollars, regardless of who it belonged to, and that is the mentality we need to have when voting. The Electoral College completely distorts any idea of democracy we supposedly have in this country, and doesn't give the individual any power.
Rather than choosing a candidate who gains the most votes (which is the electoral method that makes the most sense for a democracy) we place it in the hands of the men who are supposed to work with the President.
If the House Of Representatives and Senate choose who the President is, it prevents the point of the Presidency from coming into full view: the most powerful man in America is chosen by all of us regular people.
We have politicians supporting politicians, instead of people supporting the individuals they trust and believe in.
The rather archaic method of voting set up to regulate and oversee the American voting system has done nothing to eliminate corruption in the system. In the future, with new technology, it makes more sense to take a direct vote of the people and install the candidate who received the most votes. This would eliminate a lot of costly campaigning in states with a lot of electoral votes and give small states a bigger voice in the outcome of the election. Think what would happen if there were no states in the United States, no boundaries. Every four years, the citizens would vote for whichever of the candidates they thought would be able to benefit their lives and protect them the best. When thought of that way, it's obvious how redundant the Electoral College is.
No, the electoral college does not distort campaigns, because it is so unlikely that the electoral college would ever become a factor in a campaign, candidates do not alter their campaigning behavior based on the electoral college. While the electoral college has become a factor in recently elections, poll takers cannot predict ahead of time when an election will be so close that the electoral college will come into play. Because it cannot be predicted, candidates do not cater to smaller states based on the electoral college.