The whole article is a farce. Fist he starts off by making mention of the Founding Fathers' efforts to protect freedom of speech, which is a wonderful cause but not accomplished though Electoral College. He then goes on to suggest that abolishing the electoral college would create a "majority tyranny in federal elections", which is downright oxymoronical as tyranny implies unjust or cruel abuse of power and therefor can't rightly apply to the simple act of selecting a leader though popular opinion. Absurdly, in arguing against his supposed "tyranny of the majority" he effectively argues for tyranny of the minority; a situation were the majority of the peoples opinions can be oppressed by the will of the few.
After that abstraction from reality he really lets loose with absurd claims; equating a call for a democratically elected president to abolishing the equal representation of states we enjoy though our Senate, suggesting that a popular presidential election is hostile to liberty, and scaremongering with the idea that the idea of abolishing the electoral college is an evil plot by immoral elitists. Driving the absurdity of his arguments home, he presents the ridiculously oversimplified claim that the federal government was created by the states while overlooking the fact that it is we the people which are at the root of the our governments power.
Finally he closes by pointing out that mob rule democracy threatens liberty; which, while true, is irrelevant to the simply act of democratically electing our executor. By closing with such a blatant non-sequitur, the author makes rather clear that he lacks a good argument to defend our current electoral system. If someone has something besides empty rhetoric to add to the discussion, I'd like to hear it.