I guess it depends on how you define 'works well'. It basically silences the voices of 90% of the states, both large and small, in exchange for supremely emphasizing the voice of about 5-6 states. It's hard to see why a system that promotes the views of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona over the views of the other 45 states is good.And for all of that, it still works well. The states can distribute their votes as they see fit, either split or winner take all. This gives smaller states a voice they otherwise wouldn't have. That said, we've only elected five presidents that didn't win the popular vote.
I think it would be better to have a system where candidates had an incentive to visit all states, large and small, which is what a national popular vote would do.