Senators from Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, Nebraska, Hawaii, and South Carolina argued that they would lose influence in the national election, and even though the Electoral College is complicated and has some potentially messy loopholes, it had served the country well and there was no real reason to change it. But most explicit in his reasoning was Carl Curtis of Nebraska, he said, “My state of Nebraska has 92/100ths of 1 percent of the electoral vote. Based on the last election, we had 73/100ths of the popular vote. I am not authorized to reduce the voting power of my state by 20 percent.”
Classic naked Congressional corruption there. Very revealing. Of course they'd lose influence --- they were getting artificially inflated influence to begin with (duh).
Contrast with James Madison, who proposed abolishing the "winner-take-all" bullshit, even though it would also reduce his own state's influence ---- because it was the right thing to do.