The best I've ever been able to come up with is that the presidency is the only elected office that represent all of the States and all of the people. Given that Senators are now elected by statewide elections as representatives of each State's citizenry (rather than the States themselves), a line in the philosophy of government sand has been crossed: the people ought to be doing the electing rather than slates of party picked electors who don't even have to cast ballots based on the will of the voters.

That's how I would tackle it. Now, how to refute it? I like the argument that we don't want near totalitarian urban rule over a largely rural populace.

The 'gerrymandering' (to abuse a term) which has occurred with respect to how each State's electors must perform relative to the will of the voters. IMO, it was put into place as a last-ditch effort / ability to 'rig' the vote (and I do understand its original point and purpose mathematically) in the sense that the group of 'Electors' are the ones who actually establish the winner, and who-- historically, and at least as far as the College itself goes-- can vote in any way they choose with or without respect to the will of the voters. Since its inception, various States have passed laws which alter the way their electors are permitted / required to vote.

The only argument I hear is that it’s not democratic. I agree. It’s not meant to be.