No. Without the Electoral College, one vote cast in a coastal city would be equal to one cast in rural Wyoming. Instead, because Wyoming has more Electoral ballots per person than larger states like California and Florida, a vote cast in Wyoming is "worth" about three times as much as one cast in those larger states.

A concern about removing the Electoral College is candidates won't spend time campaigning in more remote, less populous states. A) We have broadcast media and the Internet, you don't need to spend a lot of time in those states. B) Getting rid of the Electoral College doesn't mean getting rid of the state caucus and primary systems, there would still be plenty of in-state campaigning to win those (though typically not by an incumbent president).

Wyoming is the least populous state. Of course they will have more electoral ballots per person, that was my argument. Less populous state will have more "votes" (electoral ballots) compared to the largest states.

You wrote, "they prevent the largest cities from determining the vote for everyone."

Why should people living in a less populous state have more influence on the outcome of an election than people in more populous states (or cities)?

If people living in large cities have more influence it's not because of where they live but because there are more people. More people, more influence; the Electoral College dilutes this principle of fairness.

> Instead, because Wyoming has more Electoral ballots per person than larger states like California and Florida, a vote cast in Wyoming is "worth" about three times as much as one cast in those larger states.

Anyone truly irked by this arrangement is free to move to Wyoming.