The Pennsylvania Electoral College Concept

Nate Silver looks at the strengths and weaknesses of the Pennsylvania GOP concept.  He discusses some possible other changes to the electoral college:

But what you’d probably wind up with instead is a patchwork of procedures for awarding electoral votes: some states would retain the current winner-take-all method, but some would use the congressional district split. Some might divide their votes proportionately, or use other hybrid approaches. And the method could change each time that the state government changed hands.
It’s perfectly Constitutional, for that matter, for states to award their electoral votes through the state legislature, as many states did in the early years of the Republic, without taking a popular vote at all. If Republicans want to all but guarantee that they win the presidency next year, there is nothing stopping them. They control the state governments in 21 states totaling 242 electoral votes. All they need to do is have their state legislatures pick Republican electors in those states, and then for their candidate to win by popular vote in Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi and West Virginia, which would get him to 270 electoral votes.
That, of course, is an extreme and unlikely example. But the Pennsylvania play would undermine the integrity the Electoral College, which is already fairly unpopular.

The electoral college is one of those ideas the founders had which just wasn't very well constructed.  It only took three elections to require a Constitutional amendment to fix one of the problems.  There are very few, and really, very weak reasons to keep the electoral college, but I don't see any of the small states voting to get rid of it.  But if Republicans start playing serious politics with it, I can see it getting eliminated.