The electoral college was designed by Hamilton as a way to make sure that the masses would never get the ability to elect the president. That the "informed" people of the country would pick a president who is good for the country as opposed to a popular one, afraid that you would get the "bread and circus" effect if people were able to directly vote. That was sound logic back in the early 1800's, but not now in my opinion.
CSF: Why not then do what I believe Maine does, as well as a few other states, and divide up the electoral college votes based on the percentage of voters for each candidate. If State X is worth 10 votes, kerry gets 60% and bush gets 40%, then kerry gets 6 votes and bush gets 4 votes. The "campaigning" towards urban areas doesn't quite work in practicality as well as it does in theory, because a great majority of people will vote for their "side" regardless, and, you can't please everyone. There will be plenty of urban people who vote for Bush, and plenty of country people who'll vote for Kerry, regardless of campaigning. They say 87% of the population already has their mind made up over who they want to vote for in this current election.
Bush won more states because he campaigned towards the rural areas, doing PRECISELY what you are arguing against. In the end, campaigning towards rural areas and urban areas will always happen. You don't see Bush going near many urban areas, do you? Or Kerry hitting many rural areas?
I say, popular vote should decide. Electoral college is, by the definition of the creator, a way to make sure that a true democracy is never created, that we, the people, will never actually be able to elect our president.