What would be a pro and con for continuing to use the Electoral College?

A con to cessation of use would be that the most populated states would dictate elections.

A pro to cessation of use would be that the prophetic omission of the West in End Times worldly affairs would have a reason and we could get on with the end of the Age.

Sorry if I might have configured your question, but it was very difficult for me to answer without doing so.

Do You Understand the Electoral College?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

(NOTE: The USA is NOT a Democracy, it was never intended to governed by mob rule.). The PRO about the electoral college is that it brings a balance to the practice of Public Elections. Without the Electoral College, major metropolitan regions would carry the vote, electing those that promised more benefits for the masses. But if you haven't noticed, none of the Dem's campaign promises have been fulfilled, even when they control the house and the senate. High density cities bring poverty, the needy, and lazy all together in a localized region. Yet as the Electoral College worked in 2016, the voice of the rest of the nation was heard. Do you want mob rule? Or do you want your voice heard?

The con is that the candidate with the most votes doesn’t win.

The pro is that it’s a check and balance. It gives less populated states the power to team together to overrule the bigger states.

Pro - means respecting how the country actually works.
What most people tend to completely forget is that the USA is NOT a country. Its a federalised nation uniting several other countires. Each STATE is essentially a COUNTRY, but they all operate under a single federal government.,
The Electoral College exists dso that no one STATE, meaning COUNTRY, has more power of the federal government that any other.

Hillary clinton got less than 20% of the counties in America.Do you really want no votes to count except inner city ghettos ?

The big pro is of course the reason it was set up in the first place. In a federal country, surely states matter as well as people? And what it does is introduce a bias towards states. The smaller states insisted on it when the US constitution was being written, so the big states don't dictate to the small ones all the time and being a state counts for something. It was a compromise all could agree on.

Same reason the Senate exists - it gives an equal voice to all states however big they are. If you object to the electoral college because it's not "one person, one vote", then you should also be arguing against having a Senate. It was put in the constitution as part of the same compromise.

The only con is if you believe states shouldn't matter.

This is not to say that the electoral college couldn't be reformed. The constitution as written leaves it entirely up to the states how they choose their electors, and in the early days of the USA, some states didn't hold an election at all and just had the state legislature choose them. The constitution just doesn't tell the states what to do. It left out everything it didn't absolutely have to include and respected the independence of the states to do their own thing.

The result is that nearly all states have gone for "winner takes all" so you can feel it's not worth voting unless you're in a swing state. And now all states hold an election, is there any real reason to have electors? You could just have an election to allocate electoral votes and make it a virtual college. Especially when some states have laws that make it illegal for electors not to vote the way they were told to vote.

As for "winner takes all", it would be entirely reasonable to make an Amendment that says states must allocate their electoral votes by proportion of how the people actually voted. There are mathematical methods of doing this that are used in countries that have proportional representation voting (the d'Hondt method is the simplest). Do that and you eliminate swing states and get a result closer to the popular vote, while still keeping what the electoral college was set up for.

Pro, it spreads representation around to all 50 states. It keeps three or four states from essentially discounting the other 46 when picking a President. If we didn't have the Electoral College, we'd have the populations of NY, Texas, and California picking the person who gets to appoint Federal judges to the other 47 states. We already have representatives in the House that are elected directly.

i like it but it makes the two party system almost impossible to change

the only 'pro' is watching libs make idiots out of themselves like somehow their brainchild is why they lose now lol ... it was always a bad idea and a way to manipulate elections by insiders, trump just won because the pro trump turnout was so gigantic it overrode the manipulation and it failed to be effective ... if libs want to get rid of it let them lol .. the left and dems will get buried from here on out ..

Pro: it will be difficult to change.

Con: Trump.

Pro (for Republicans): it's the best way to get Republicans into office.
Con (for Democrats): it's the best way to get Republicans into office.
AND it goes against the very idea of democracy.