And for calling the EC a "very flawed system", it just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. The EC was designed to do exactly what it did this election cycle.
So it was designed to promote the will of the minority? To impose the white mans will on the rest of the country.. yes the rural "mid west" is largely white vs the cities where minorities are for the most part.. dont think a second that people have not noticed this clear flaw in the EC.
If fact we may see both aspects of its power, though unlikely. The EC has existed since we put together the Constitution and it gives weight to the middle of the country, rural areas, and lower populated States.
Yes a massive flaw if true. The EC was designed for 13 colonies/states, not 50+. It was designed when a very small minority of the population could vote and designed when it took weeks for results to get from one end of the country to another.. it is flawed and outdated.
This is necessary, the Republic (not democracy) must consider the whole, not just the cities.
A republic is democracy.. just a variant of it. Using the "we are a republic" excuse is just more bull**** denial. Even the Roman Republic was run by majority rule of votes (when they were not killing each other of course).
So to be President of the US, you're going to need votes from Middle America.
Yes only Middle America counts it seems.. the place where fewest people live. How on earth is that fair in any way? Then again this is a system built by rich white male slave owners, at a time when only male landowners were allowed to vote.
Furthermore, what country popularly elects their leader?
Plenty, in fact most I believe.
Is the UK Prime Minister popularly elected?
UK is a piss poor example for a democracy. An un-elected appointed upper house and a system that favours the right in such a massive scale that they only need 32% of the over all vote to get absolute power.
How about the leaders of the EU?
Each leader in the EU are elected for the most part. Theoretically you can have a non elected PM or minister in a country but it is rare and said person is always backed up by a majority in the parliament which means a majority of the people. And I know you are thinking of the commission but hate to disappoint you.. they are bureaucrats, and you dont elect those.. you hire them.
As far as I know, no one really elects by popular vote their leader.
Okay, just looking at Head of State... then roughly 114 out of 220? countries elect directly their head of state. Notable mentions are Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Coratia, Cypris Czech Republic, France, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Russia and many others.
Now Prime Ministers are elected based on who controls parilement and can get most votes there, and that is based on largely a majority of the overall vote. So any majority government will always have a majority of the overall vote behind them. Minority governments do not, but they are also much easier to get rid of and hence have to go on plenty of compromise to stay in power. My own country is run by a minority right wing government that goes to both sides over the middle to get legislation passed and the budget of course.
Regardless, in almost every democratic system BUT the US and UK, the people in power will have a popular mandate behind them of a majority of the vote.. it is basic democracy. Face it, Trump has next to no mandate as President as he lost the popular vote and only an outdated 1700s system that favoured white male landowners saved his bacon.