Period.

Anyone concerned about the relative power of big states and small states should realize that the current system shifts power from voters in the small and medium-small states to voters in the current handful of big states.

Under the current system, the 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States, and a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates' attention, much less control the outcome.
The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down  as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.  

I do recognize that metropolitan areas are not monolithic, but their regional desires do tend to fishtail.

The main media at the moment, namely TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. So, if you just looked at TV, candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

Those television spots are really great where candidates can promise the moon, but there is more value in the face to face chance encounter between a candidate and a voter.  Believe me, if I have to live through another election the least I can hope for is a rolling camera whenever Joe Biden opens his mystifying pie hole.  

Of course, this isn't just about generically pandering to urban areas, it is just as importantly about a candidate's financial resources and his ability to talk to a great number of voters while the campaign cash holds out.  Big cities provide bigger crowds, more enabling infrastructure, and the cost per potential voter is miniscule when compared to a jaunt to Alpena as far as on the road campaigning goes.  

So color me a skeptic when I hear that candidates would be more likely to travel up here under a changed system.  

I too wonder about these polls that take place and how the questions are asked...."Do you think it is fair for a candidate with fewer actual votes to win an election?" Well, duh.  No.

"Do you think a better way to decide an election's winner would be for the candidate who gets the most votes to win?" Well, duh. Yes!

The current system was set up a long time ago by negotiators trying to get the smaller states into the union.  The smaller states felt they would be foolish to join hands with larger states if, once they joined, the larger states would simply dominate them.  The electoral college and the US Senate were two such methods that attempted to level the playing field.