The electoral college was nearly abolished in the late 1960s after George Wallace's segregationist campaign. Additionally between 1948 and 1968 there were 3 close races that could have swung either way in the EC.
An amendment to abolish the electoral college passed the House that year by an overwhelming margin - something like 350 votes in favor. It looked likely to pass the Senate and a poll of state legislatures revealed that it would pass the necessary number of state legislatures.
Where it died was in the Senate, where Deep-South Dixiecrats opposed it. In fact, Tennessee's Howard Baker supported the amendment. However, although it had majority support and early on in the debate looked like it would pass, the Southern Dixiecrats were able to filibuster it.
My point though is that in 1969, the small states were persuaded to support abolishing the EC bc they were shown by political scientists that they actually get less out of it right now than they would under a national popular vote scheme. Most small states are overwhelmingly one-party which reduces any incentive for states or in some cases entire regions (RE: the great plains, the deep south) to even be contested.
Read this:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/10/17/peculiar_institution/According to the Constitution, each state casts a number of electoral votes equivalent to the size of its delegation in the House of Representatives (which is proportional to the state's population) plus two (for its two Senators). This system gives disproportionate weight to voters in small states: In 2000, forexample, South Dakota had one electoral vote for every 230,000 people, while each of New York's electoral votes represented more than 500,000. Whatever the merits of the arguments for and against the Electoral College, it was assumed that the small states would defend this numerical advantage and block any constitutional amendment instituting a national popular election. Only fuzzy-minded idealists would want to tilt against that windmill.
What was not discussed in the aftermath of the 2000 election was the little-known fact that the United States came very close to abolishing the Electoral College in the late 1960s. A constitutional amendment calling for direct popular election of the president was backed by the American Bar Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters, and a host of other un-fuzzy-minded pillars of civil society. On Sept. 18, 1969, the House of Representatives passed the amendment by a huge bipartisan vote of 338 to 70. President Nixon endorsed it, and prospects for passage in the Senate seemed reasonably good. A poll of state legislatures indicated that the amendment would likely be approved by the requisite three-quarters of the states.
The effort ultimately failed -- but not because of concerted opposition from the small states. In fact, many political leaders from small states supported the amendment. What blocked the reform movement was a more troublesome cleavage -- one involving race and the political power of the South.