It's generally more productive to talk about the reasons why a proposed change is or isn't valuable than to talk about the kinds of people who believe it. I could construct a mirror version of your comment: "People who oppose this tend to be largely uneducated in the theory of voting systems and are typically located in rural areas, where of course they would benefit from the status quo." But such statements aren't really helpful if one is trying to come to a conclusion about an issue.
IMHO, some kind of electoral reform is needed, though probably not this particular bill. The current system forces the political landscape into a two party state very strongly right now, which I think has caused the nation a lot of damage. As someone once said, whose name I don't remember at the moment, "a two party state means that things can get arbitrarily bad, so long as the two parties get worse at equal rates."
As I understand it, a major concern of the drafters of the Constitution was to ensure that less populous states had enough power to prevent more populous states from bullying them into submission. I agree with that ideal, and think that any new system should conserve it. One possible option is to keep the electoral college, and the current relative weighting of densely vs. sparsely populated states, but to use something like approval-voting, or score-voting instead of FPTP. That would both weaken the two party stranglehold, and preserve the current weighting of state votes. I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on such a system?
Ad hominem. Personal attack and guilt by association.
Americans are as a rule uneducated in our system of government. And it would be a tremendous waste to make 300 million constitutional law professors. From experience, I expect that would increase disagreements about the constitution, not resolve them all.
(For instance, the idea of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact was suggested by by a Yale professor of constitutional law, a UC professor of constitutional law, and the a Northwestern professor of constitutional law and former dean, so I doubt they are uneducated in our system of government and Constitutional history. But I suppose you're referring to popular support in general.)
