I think that Dromig, and others, won't let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good" if, indeed, a President elected by popular vote is "perfect."  

As a representative republic, a psephocracy, one can just as easily argue the that the greater representation in the House is an inequality in states' power at the federal level, or that Alaska having two senators is unfair to Texas, also limited to two.  

The President is elected the executive head of the United States (a republic), not "President of America" (an agglomeration of people in a bordered territory).  If one wants change, while preserving the republic, look for changing the apportioning of electors at the state level.  Winner-take-all is a bad way, in my opinion, (as is "electors must vote for the popular-vote winner") to illustrate the will of the people in a state ; it focuses candidates to a strategy of "winning" select states while failing to develop a strategy of winning the hearts and minds of the populace.