Now you are begging the question. Let me rephrase so you can see it: Direct elections are fairer than the EC, because what could be more equitable than one person one vote. Do you see how this is unacceptable?

It should be apparent why your rules change example is flawed, but I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit hole. That whole analogy is ridiculous. Stick to the topic.

The two reasons are overlapping, but distinguishable. To avoid majority rule (which you have yet to address), and to create electorates who were accountable to the people that would shut down demagogues. The former is working as intended, the latter isn't.

I have no idea what you're talking about in your last two paragraphs. Was that a thing? Was anyone discussing that? Did you just want to quote something you found on the internet? Stick to the topic.

---