It strikes me that the electoral college is interesting, but fundamentally flawed from a business perspective. Yes, I mean a business perspective.
Currently, the states garnering the most political advertising are Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. The TV markets are Philadelphia (Market #4, I believe), Cleveland (mid-20's), Miami (high teens), Cincinnati (high 20's), Tampa (low 20's), Orlando (mid-30's), Columbus (mid-30's), Toledo (small market), Dayton (small market), etc.
More below the fold.
With the exception of Philadelphia, all of these markets have something in common - their TV station affiliates are NOT Owned & Operated stations of the major broadcast networks. In New York, DC, Chicago, LA, Philly, and the rest of the top 10 markets, it is customary for the network itself to own its affiliate. This is highly lucrative for the network - these stations often have profit margins of 50% or more. In fact, networks like ABC and Fox often take losses on programming at the network level because they know they'll make it up at their O&O's.
Because the electoral college focuses election advertising - nearly $600 million this cycle - AWAY from the top 10 markets, it also increases the profits of the non-owned affiliates. The networks - which are big companies like Disney, GE, Viacom and News Corp. are giving up perhaps HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars each 4 years because of the electoral college. It thus stands to reason that these corporations would have the most to gain by eliminating the electoral college.
These corporations could promote the elimination of the electoral college through lobbying efforts(they could spare millions for such an effort) as well as "free" advertising through programs advocating the abolition of the electoral college. They say "never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel." I think the same could be said for those who have an FCC license.
Just as a thought as we head into another election that may have a split popular vote/electoral college vote.