In theory, getting rid of the EC is because some people believe one person one vote for President. If not majority rule in that vote, they feel other voters have outsized influence.1) I never said the EC was bad. This was your interpretation. The EC has strengths and weaknesses.
2) I also never said we should do it the way other countries do. I offered a perspective on how other countries have done it and you interpreted it as me saying I want to do it that way.
And again, you're trying to distract from the point by shaking a shiny toy in the other hand. As you mentioned, we have three equal branches of government. Yet, in a discussion about the process for electing the leader of the Executive Branch, you're continually trying to bring up questions about the other two. It's not germane or necessary in a conversation about the EB. In theory, one could make changes to how the president is elected without touching the process for the other two branches.
If that is the line of thinking, then why wouldn’t we get rid of the Senate? Because That same line of thinking would dictate 2 Senators from RI give those citizens by population proportion more power than 2 CA Senators by their population proportion.
obviously I say keep the status quo because the design protects all people from self destructing an entire system of government. As evidence by today, this system can withstand an awful lot of nonsense.