Electoral College Question(s)

The prospect of directly electing the ruler of a nation was simply unheard of at the time. Most plans introduced at the constitutional convention called for Congress to elect the president, but the Framers ultimately decided that arrangement was too prone to corruption, and would weaken the executive if he owed his job to the legislative branch, so they instead designated a temporary "legislature" created for the sole purpose of choosing a president, and then dissolving. Some states held direct elections for their electors, even in the early days of the republic, though most simply appointed them through the state legislature. By 1824, most states had switched to popular elections as the method for choosing electors.
It is a shame that we live in a company that claims to be a
democracy, yet our votes don’t necessarily count. A president can lose or tie with the popular vote, but win the presidency if they have more votes according to the electoral college. This doesn’t make sense to me. I think that they should just count every vote, and whichever candidate has the most votes should be the president.
The first draft of our Constitution had Congress electing the President, but many delegates to the Constitution Convention were concerned that would create a much too cozy relationship between Congress and the President. The Electoral College was a compromise to avoid that problem. Only a few of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were in favor of a popular vote for the President. While most delegates trusted the voters in their own state many had concerns about some of the other states, particularly the mercantile northern states versus the slave holding southern states and visa-verse. I believe in some aspects it did succeed and in others it failed as well.