"But then the big populous cities will decide all the policy for the whole country!"

How is it better that a bunch of sparsely populated rural areas decide policy for the big cities like it is right now?

Edit: the article addresses this far better than I did, and points out that it's a false premise:

> We can clearly see this by looking at where the presidential candidates are spending their money and campaign time. An NPR analysis from May showed that the two presidential candidates were spending most of their money in just a few states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. All of those rank in the top 15 states, by population, except for Wisconsin, which is 20th (meaning it’s still in the top half of states by population). **The Electoral College does not direct candidates’ campaign time and attention to small states but to big states where the race happens to be tight.**

> And that doesn’t even tell the full story in terms of the true urban-rural divide. First of all, the idea of a “rural” state is largely a myth. According to the 2020 Census, 80 percent of Americans live in “urban” areas. **In only four states—Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia—does a majority of the population live outside of urban areas, and nobody with a straight face would argue that the Electoral College encourages presidential candidates to spend a lot of time and resources in those places.**

In short, if the EC defended rural areas vs. urban you'd see campaigning in rural states like Maine, Mississippi, Vermont, and West Virginia.  Instead all the spending is in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin, which are states that aren't even particularly rural any more.  The only thing that matters is that they are politically a toss-up with a large enough population to make it worth the effort to try to capture.  Rural vs. urban doesn't figure into it at all.