Federalist #39 clearly spells out the primary purpose of the electoral college...that being to make the selection of the President and his power come from a combination of the people and the states, just as Congressional power is derived. (i.e. the House power is apportioned based on the population with each state getting a number of delegates based on the number of people in the state while the Senate power is apportioned equally among states with each state getting two Senators.) The founders thought this was an appropriate way to balance power in the Republican government between the people of the nation and the states. They wanted and created the same balance of power for the Presidential selection as they did with Congressional selection.
Federalist #39
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many FEDERAL as NATIONAL features.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed39.asp
As to the thread topic, I believe this is a case where one should be careful what they wish for....they might get it. A constitutional convention would be an effective way to address areas of the Constitution which sorely need addressing....things like placing clear bounds on the interstate commerce clause which is grossly abused by the Federal government to stick its nose into areas where it has no authority by any reasonable reading of the constitution. We could also address items like adding term limits.
However, a constitutional convention opens up the whole can of worms....Depending on the whims of the delegates, you could wind up with them changing items you don't want changed. Do you like the 1st amendment...the 2nd amendment? There's no guarantees those protections survive at all or unadulterated. Given the shockingly poor civics education these days, many people have no real understanding of the concepts and reasoning behind the governmental system our founders created....as well evidenced by many in this forum!
conventionofstates.com
