I agree, but I'm not sure they are really being well represented through the current system. Currently about 40 states are pretty solid in where they are going to vote. So it is only 10 or so states that get any focus anyway. A democrat can ignore Wyoming just as much as a Republican can ignore Delaware. The parties and candidates don't take those 35-40 states into account as it is, as they are givens. Under a popular system a candidate would have to care about voters in Wyoming. A republican can't afford for republican Wyomingites to stay home and a democrat has reason to care about a minority that can actually help get them elected. Right now, who cares about Wyoming? Neither party does. They care a lot more about Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.
You seem to care about the President representing all of the country, and I agree with that sentiment; but are we really well served by a system that has one president ignore the concerns of the heartland while the next ignores the concerns of the coasts (broad generalizations of course)? Too often I see people decrying the notion that NY and CA would dominate, but those states aren't monolithic and there almost certainly millions of Republican potential voters in those states who don't bother because they live in reliably blue districts. You could make a strong case that a republican in many wards (districts?) of San Francisco has no reason to vote. They won't be deciding anything from Dog Catcher all the way to POTUS. Make this change and they actually have a reason to vote. They can add their voice to almost 5 million Californians who any Republican candidate would have to pay attention to.
Fair, unless of course this compact is deemed constitutional. It would likely be better to have a constitutional change, but as it appears that states can allocate electors by means other than a simple state-wide majority, it is likely an open question as to whether this is constitutional.
As for it being, "short-sighted, emotionally driven idiocy that will not go to the benefit of the Republic.", perhaps. I'm sure the same kind of thing was said around all major changes. Income tax, giving women the right to vote, abolishing slavery, outlawing alcohol, etc. And you can likely find some who still today will argue most of those, but I don't think it is as easy as you portray to prognosticate the outcome of a slight shift to give more power to individual American Citizens vs power to individual states.
