Other suggestions:

Ballots only accepted if post-marked between, say, February 1st and 29th.

Any candidate who raises any funds for his/her campaign before November 1st of the previous year or who buys any campaign ad (of any type, print or broadcast) before January 15th loses half his/her votes, no exceptions.

I like your idea. Simple and effective, and the candidates can choose among several different strategies: big state/expensive ads, small state/ cheaper ads, or a combination of the two.

Are you OK with a state reducing its voting age to say 16 or even 12 to boost the raw number of votes cast?

If after 95% of the votes were in it was found that the candidate with 60% of the vote had hired a hit man to rub out the spouse, then are you stuck with this loser?

Do you require a majority or will a simple plurality do?  If only a plurality, are you OK with an outcome where the candidate with 12% of the vote wins in a ten candidate field.

If a state adopts "acceptance voting" (where you can vote for as many candidates as you like) would that be a problem?  Some see acceptance voting as a way to keep Nader type candidates from screwing up tight elections.  

Would you be OK with discovered ballot boxes long after the vote in Chicago that tipped the election to the mayor's favorite?

I hate commenters like you.

The electoral college will need a constitutional amendment which requires two thirds vote of congress.  I am not sure about ratification by the individual states.

But let us not confuse the two issues:  nomination by the political parties and the general election. The republicans can decide how they go about their nominating process and the democrats can do too.

Switch to a popular vote system would pretty much institutionlize the Red State/Blue State dichotomy.  Democrats would pretty much ignore small states as they would get almost nothing from them.

Perhaps one day off for everyone that is allowed off (usually 9 to 5ers), with a week for those that have to work to trickle in.

I don't believe that the DNC has the authority to change how states conduct their election business.

The way to encourage states to stop caucuses is to provide money through the DNC to fund alternative methods.  I like the mail in system for states that don't have the money for primaries.  

Seed the process.  The states apply for the money.

THAT I think the DNC could attract money from voters all over to fund.

I don't like the 4 states up front.  That really was the issue this year.  Everyone is sick of Iowa, frankly.  LOL*  I personally like the idea of rotating early primary schedules.  Let other states have a shot once in a blue moon.

Heck, you could even let Iowa and New Hampshire go first and then let every other state decide when they want their election and how they want to do it.