Why would you think they don't? I'll admit this is a massive sweeping generalisation, but as a rule, urban voters tend to swing left and that mostly correlates with environmental advocacy.
But more generally... >> abolishing the Electoral College will not fix anything
Yeah, it will. For a start, it will fix the problem of the Electoral College existing.
It's an inherently undemocratic institution that is completely unnecessary in the 21st century.
And that's not a partisan position (I live in NZ so I really don't have skin in the game here). If you're a democrat living in Texas or a republican living in California, you may as well not vote in presidential elections.
You could move the presidential election to a Single Transferable Vote system and then you might actually get viable 3rd party candidates as people wouldn't have to worry about "wasting their vote".
Getting 38 states to approve eliminating it is highly unlikely.
This is ridiculous. The correlation of left-leaning and environmental advocacy is relatively new. Or rather, conservatives ignoring conservation is a rather new thing. Many of the first conservationists, and the reason we have things like national parks, and such were rural conservatives.
> No, abolishing the Electoral College will not fix anything <random rant>
Fix? What does that even mean? It would start to bring it back to a direct democracy, expanding the franchise beyond the state, as _you_ pointed out.
For example, California passes all sorts of interesting environmental regulations; and the states regularly weigh on their neighbours and tributaries to have similar laws.
> abolish the EC ... to start with
No, abolishing the Electoral College will not fix anything unless you think average urban Americans care even one bit about the natural wonder of the country, or have any restraint toward the rural minority.