It seems to me that criticism can be analyzed against at least a couple of criteria.
- is the critic correct?
- has the critic identified something that needs fixing?
- is it possible to fix it without introducing worse problems?
- has the critic dragged in issues that do not fall within the scope of the system under discussion?
Some of the criticisms of the Electoral College are
- the winner of its vote may not be the winner of a majority of the popular vote (indeed, there may not be a majority winner of the popular vote)
- some people are underrepresented relative to other people.
Some of the disadvantages of the reform proposals are
- they don't solve the problem
- they introduce much worse problems
- certain unexpected election outcomes are still possible
- the popular vote outcome may not be reflected in the outcome of Electoral College voting.
More details are available at the link above, which expresses a definite point of view.
Fair voting is an elusive goal. Every scheme proposed to date will give a counter-intuitive or undesired result under some circumstances. Most voting reform proposals seem to disregard this mathematical fact.
