Why should anybody care about those states? You still haven't really answered this question. With the exception of agricultural R&D in IA (supported in corporate and university environments), I'm not really sure what either state really contributes and whether that contribution warrants weighting influence in the way that both the primary system and the EC system ultimately do for those states.
I'm also not sure how catering to states like OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc. is elitist either, another point that you have yet to acknowledge. You call it elitism, but I call it free market decisions about where people want to live. The most populace states should have more influence and there are a lot of populace states beyond CA and NY that do get an inordinate amount of attention on the campaign trail (see: OH, PA, NC, FL, VA, etc.). Even beyond that, your premise appears to be that states like CA and NY are uniform in their political leanings That also doesn't pass the smell test. Half of CA is rural/agricultural/military (not to mention the fact that Silicon Valley appears to lean libertarian on average) and NY is rust belt once you leave the NYC metro area. Cutting those parts of the country out of the democratic process because LA/SF/NYC vote blue is pretty stupid, too.
Furthermore (and please clarify if this is not the case) your premise appears to be that a vote in IA and NH is more valuable than a vote in CA And NY. I find that to be pretty undemocratic.
ETA: I agree with this post, too. It makes me think that an effect of the EC system will be path dependent in the sense that states that (stupidly) matter under this system will continue to matter because they are some of the few states with institutionalized GOTV infrastructure. That is to say, voters in IA are accustomed to swinging elections and will continue to vote as if they still have this ability even if the EC were to be dissolved.