The debate over the electoral college is whether the United States president should be the person who gets the most votes in the popular (one person one vote) vote, or the person who gets the most votes in the electoral college that gives more electors per population for the low-population states than the high-population states.

This debate misses the more important point, which is that there should not be a president of the United States. Why not?

The president of the United States is the executive branch of the United States government, and that government is one that makes  laws written by only a few hundred people in Washington, D.C. and forces hundreds of millions of people, some as far as thousands of miles away, to obey them. This is wrong.

The only laws that people in a local community should have to obey are the laws made by the local assembly of egalitarians, in which all egalitarians in the local community are invited to participate as equals. An egalitarian is any person who values equality and mutual aid in the sense of "From each according to reasonable ability, to each according to reasonable need or desire" as discussed more here. Order on a larger-than-local scale should be achieved by voluntary federation of local assemblies of egalitarians, as discussed here.

Voluntary federation of egalitarians is the way for people who value equality and mutual aid to democratically make decisions. In contrast, the current United States government is a way for a plutocracy to exercise its dictatorship of the rich disguised as a "representative democracy of all the people." For evidence of this, go here.