Certainly better, because minority votes will not be ignored as they are now. Consider the following hypothetical example:
Three States A, B, and C have the population of 100 each. State A has 65 farmers and 35 blacksmiths, states B and C have 45 farmers and 55 blacksmiths each. There are altogether 155 farmers (51.6% of the total population), and 145 blacksmiths.
It is clear that under the electoral college system, a smart thing to do is to ignore farmers altogether and appeal only to blacsmiths. Why? Beacuse blacksmiths can deliver 2 "state" votes (B and C) out of 3. That would effectively disenfranchise farmers in states B and C. Abolishing the electoral college, OTOH, would enfranchise minority populations in B and C, as they could "pool" their votes with the majority in State A.
In practical terms, a third party could be safely ignored by major political parties as lomg as they are confident in gaining enough electoral votes. However, that would not be so if the popular vote counted, especially in close elections.
wojtek