�The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,�

If you want the president to represent only areas of dense population and neglect the needs/issues of more rural areas, then yes absolutely. But, I hope you like democrats. 'cause urban areas typically vote democrat by a very large margin.

�More important,�� he said, �is changing the way presidential campaigns are conducted in this country. Now, the candidates spend almost all of their time in a handful of battleground states like Ohio and LINKSWARM and ignore the rest of the country. This would force candidates to campaign nationally for every vote.�

No, it would force candidates to consentrate their campaigns in NY & LA

Unless other states adopt it, which they could if they wanted to

assuming every state adopts it, why would candidates waste time and money campaigning for a few votes in a rural location when the same amount of time and money could brings thousands more votes in urban locations?

It would only take a couple states with enough electoral votes to swing an election one way or the other. Its not a fix to the electoral college but it does ensure, in the classic consesus-model democracy sense, that votes would go to the winner of the popular vote. I don't think its a fantastic solution, in fact if every state adopted it it would become a rather weird, ineffective system. But its clever.