The requisite number of states would never ratify the needed Amendment to change it thus your "even more of an argument" is still insufficient. That being the case I personally think your better move is to ponder the strategic and long-term significance of what is being proposes in light of the near certainty that the EC will never go away. And proposing such an extreme measure to be used for such a short term and fleeting (and more importantly doomed) effort to annoy a political foe of the moment who is more of a disagreeable person than a true existential danger to the nation is really, really, truly stupid strategy. Like Argentina invading the Faulklands kinda stupid. The combination of the precedent it sets, the extremely low probability of success, and the complete lack of control over the outcome once it reaches the House (should the effort even be successful) make this extremely foolish. It's like "Rachel Corrie getting run over by an Israeli bulldozer" combination of both pointless and dumb.