That's incorrect, and you know it.As I've said: What counter-arguments? There hasn't been anyone who cared to actually debate electoral topics since fuji,. Like yours, the other responses have amounted to, "give it a rest", not debate.
So I keep pointing out the illegitimacy of rigged votes and the superiority of universal suffrage. If you don't care to think about such stuff that's your option, but telling me certainly won't decrease my commitment to the concept.
To remind you of one such counterargument, it's been put to you that whatever the strategic and other consequences of the electoral college system, it is the system that convinced smaller population states to join the Republic, because it offered some degree of comfort to such states (which may have been punching above their weight economically, or had a unique vision of how their society fit within this Republic) that changing population distributions would not completely erode their influence. If that was the basis for coming together, you'd need a very strong argument to convince such states to water down the original deal. I don't think that there has ever been an election that resulted in a president who was so unrepresentative that it would convince such (generally flyover) states to cede their small measure of political security in favor of a presidency determined by popularity in California and New York.
Politically, it would seem far wiser to live with the deal in these circumstances, and simply expect candidates to be smart enough to understand how to campaign under the rules that exist.