How does any of that change anything I've said?

They explicitly negotiated the electoral college to protect their ability to not be overwhelmed by more populous states, and forever maintain their voice in the union. It is working exactly as intended, and is essentially a contract we are all a party to.

We don't let one party unilaterally change other contracts, why should we here? It seems you'd have to be a very big hypocrite to support such a thing. You should honour the deal or find a way to renegotiate it that makes everyone happy, not just yourself.

For one thing, the social contract among the states was already changed in the 1860s. We're no longer some loose confederation of independent states. The Feds are in charge, whether you like it or not, and the states are effectively administrative divisions, whether you like it or not. We literally fought a war about this and the "states' rights" people lost.

For another, we're not bound to contracts between people who are long dead.

For another, the constitution (little c, not the actual document) is not a literal contract. That's a methaphor.

Finally: Why do you, as a person, want a system where land can vote? Or are you a parcel of land pretending to be a person?