Why no electoral college needed for Alaska, Texas, California, Montana.... ?

So blue state urban areas have unreliable voting... but only for the President, not for the governor... and red-state urban areas are entirely reliable. (Glad to know that Philadelphia suddenly became reliable in 2016, after being unreliable 1992-2012.)

The historical reasons for the EC are plain, yes. Personally I'd find it hilarious to roll back the 12th amendment and return to the original setup: 1st place becomes President, 2nd place takes the VP slot. President Trump serving with Vice President Clinton would be as entertaining as it gets.

But anyway, after 1800, the FFs realized a weakness of the system and did amend the Constitution to deal with it. My question now is, why should it not be amended again to simply eliminate the EC? Reasons that line up with facts, are relevant for today, and make logical sense are preferable.

What about faithless electors? In 2016 there were 10 of them (though 3 were nulled by state laws), but still the largest count in over a century -- and their avowed intent was to stop the election of President Trump.

In the EC you only need to corrupt a couple dozen people to swing an election the opposite way and the corruption might never be proven.

Under a popular vote, the corruption has to impact the votes of millions and could never be successfully buried.