I know this is a nice debate topic, but from a practical perspective it is meaningless. The process of the US Presidential election cannot be changed, at this time, or anytime in the foreseeable future.
The Electoral College was a compromise balancing the desire of one faction in the Constitutional Congress to have the President elected by the Congress and other faction that wanted the President selected by direct popular vote.
One side felt that more populous areas and states would have too much influence. The other felt that it would create power brokering and a President beholden onto politicians, instead of answerable to the people. The compromise was a two tiered system where the people would vote for a slate of electors that would vote for President.
To change that means (1) addressing the underlying conflict; and (2) opening up the process of amendments in an extremely divisive atmosphere.
Changing the Constitution requires either (A) a Constitution Amendment passed by Congress (by 2/3rds) and ratified by 2/3rds of the states; or; (B) a meeting of a Constitutional Convention.
You'll never get 2/3rds of the states to agree that they should lose power in the election. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine... would NEVER ratify an amendment that reduced their voting power by 67%-75%. In fact, finding These states would have to give up power to places like California. Even states like Tennessee, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia would have a tough time giving more power to California. And, all of that is premised on getting super majorities in both house of Congress to agree to a power shift.
So, the only other way to accomplish the goal, a Constitutional Convention. That's not going to happen for the same reasons AND because the prospects of opening all other messes up to Constitutional politics would be M.A.D. Imagine pro-lifers allowing a debate on abortions? Or, gun advocates allowing the Second Amendment to be open to repeal? Or, libertarians allowing the debate on scope of the commerce clause? Or, religious leaders allowing debate on the true meaning of the "establishment"/"free exercise" clauses? Or, even the congressional members wanting a debate on the scope of executive authority? To open all of these debates up, at once, in such a divisive environment is just unrealistic.
Now, I have to wonder, is the debate being raised because the presidential system is flawed or because the person raising the issue believes result is flawed? Would they have felt the same way if Trump had lost? Would they be considering the issue if Clinton won?
Lastly, none of this addresses the underlying issues raised that caused the original compromise... Why should places like LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Jacksonville... heavy urban centers have overwhelming power over rural Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc... In a direct election system, campaigning would be directed to the heavy urban centers and the rural areas would be more or less ignored. Why would a candidate spend $500,000 to canvas Iowa, when they can get 50x more coverage and potential votes by one rally in Philadelphia or Los Angeles? Why spend two weeks travelling around Nebraska (1.8million people), when they can reach 2.1million people in Houston and not lose so much time?
Until we can answer the compromise between Urban and Rural, we don't solve the problem.